Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-26 16:27:58
Message-ID: 1335457678.14211.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On ons, 2012-04-25 at 23:02 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational
> features:

> (1) OIDs

> (2) Inheritance

> (3) Dot function call syntax

I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs
there.

> Given all this, why do we still call postgres an object-relational
> system (in the first sentence of our "About" page)?

I think it's still a good mission statement of sorts, even if most
people don't use all the features.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Ned LillyDate: 2012-04-26 17:27:12
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2012-04-26 12:12:47
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group