On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> Could we name this "postgresql_fdw" instead? We already have several >>> ${productname}_fdw out there, and I don't want to get in the business of >>> having to guess variant spellings. > >> If you don't like variant spellings, having anything to do with >> PostgreSQL, aka Postgres, and usually discussed on the pgsql-* mailing >> lists, is probably a bad idea. > > [ snicker ] But still, Peter has a point: pgsql is not a name for the > product, it's at best an abbreviation. We aren't calling the other > thing orcl_fdw or ora_fdw. > > I think either postgres_fdw or postgresql_fdw would be fine.
I liked the shorter name, myself, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers