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

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

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-27 07:05:52
Message-ID: 1335510352.28653.82.camel@jdavis (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 19:27 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs
> there.

I don't see that as particularly object-oriented. C has structs. But I
can see how it's somewhat "in the spirit of" OO.

> > 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.

The reason why I brought this up is because it seems like we've been
moving steadily *away* from these concepts the entire time I've been
involved in postgres. I don't have that strong of an opinion on the
subject, but it seems disingenuous to use "object" as the first word in
the description.

	Jeff Davis

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-27 07:34:14
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-04-27 06:44:48
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group