Talk:PostgreSQL/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.postgresql.org/about/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW the PostgreSQL website is pretty liberally licensed (https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=blob;f=README.rst;h=HEAD;hb=refs/heads/master), it's a BSD style license without a visible attribution requirement. No idea if that changes the situation. 8.46.73.193 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PostgreSQL/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for nominating this article. I believe you may be the same person I reviewed for at Talk:OpenBSD/GA1. If not, then my mistake. After looking through this article, I will have to quick-fail this nomination as there are a lot of sentences that do not have citations. With these unreferenced sentences, this article is a long way from passing the verifibilaity criteria. Here is an in-depth explanation:

In the history section, the main issue is that two paragraphs ("In 1994, Berkeley graduate students Andrew Yu and Jolly Chen", and "The project continues to make releases available") do not have any citations. With the other paragraphs in the history section, there are some sentences that require citations as well. Of these paragraphs, the POSTGRES paragraph needs citations the most.

Looking at the Storage and replication section, there are many statements that are missing citations. Four of these sub-sections (Schemas, User-defined objects, Inheritance, and Other storage features) do not have any citations to back up these senteces. The other three sub-sections (Replication, Indexes, and Data types) have a lot of unreferenced sentences in their paragraphs.

For the rest of the article: Security, Standards compliance, Platforms, Database administration, and release history all require citations. Of these five sections, the Security section has many parts that needs citations (the "PostgreSQL manages its internal security" paragraph, the bullet points, "The GSSAPI, SSPI, Kerberos, peer, ident and certificate methods" part and "These methods are specified in the cluster's host-based authentication configuration file" part).

Overall: This article requires a lot of citations and therefore is not close enough to pass verifibiliaty for a good article. Of the listed sections I mentioned, the history, security, and storage sections need many citations. This is mainly because of the unreferenced subsections in the storage section and unreferenced paragraphs in the security section. Therefore, I will have to fail this article. Also, I noticed that this nomination is your only edit so far. Per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions, it is preferable that a nominator should be a major contributor to the article they are nominating. If you wish to renominate this article in the future, feel free to! In order for this article to have a better chance at GAN, these unreferenced sections must be cited with reliable sources. Thank you for your time! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Different sets of release dates

In this edit, Tech201805 (talk · contribs) asked for an inferior assistant to check the PostgreSQL release dates in the article. It looks to me as if there are inconsistencies in the documentation. I've collected dates from the release notes for each version listed in the article:

9.0 2010-09-20
9.1 2010-10-04
9.2 2010-12-16
9.3 2011-01-31
9.4 2011-04-18
9.5 2011-09-26
9.6 2011-12-05
Note that 9 goes up to 9.23 on 2015-10-08
10  2017-10-05
11  2018-10-18
12  2019-10-03

but if you look at 9.2 in the article it says 2012-09-10 and gives a reference to a news release from PostgreSQL.org which is indeed dated 2012-09-10. I doubt if anyone actually cares about any of this so my suggestion is to remove all the point releases from the table to simplify the task of tracking down different release dates in different sources. I don't want to do a large deletion without discussion though. Any thoughts? --Northernhenge (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a bug with postgres' docs (anyone care to report?). The previous dates are correct. +mt 23:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

How to pronounce "psycopg"?

Actually the title is the question. How to pronounce "psycopg". No any info about that in project's FAQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogaren (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Psy-cop-g? I'd be more interested to the etymology for the name. +mt 20:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's Psyco-p-g. I like the idea of a PSY cop, though. I imagine dozens of police in riot gear doing the Gangnam Style dance.Icesword2 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the "psycopg" name comes from the Psyco Python interpreter. So I would say "psycho-pee-gee" too. -- intgr [talk] 09:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My coworker says 'Psycho pig,' which is memorable if not precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.31.134 (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has suggested PSYOP with a silent g. Gmarmstrong (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, here's the actual story behind the name: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/36cffb61-3912-915c-4933-3bcd9cac063a%40dndg.it Gmarmstrong (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)