Re: PostgreSQL Object-Oriented Database?

Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to "Robert Pepersack" <RPepersack(at)mdinsurance(dot)state(dot)md(dot)us>:
>
>
>> I read the document on array data types. Do they have anything at all to do with PostgreSQL being "object-oriented"?
>>
>
> If you want to be pedantic, not really. Technically, Postgres isn't
> "object-oriented", it's "object-relational".
>
> But then again, C isn't considered to be object-oriented, but I've
> seen some very clever object-oriented code written in C. Of course,
> there are languages that have object-oriented syntax as more of the
> core of their design, which usually is what's meant by saying that
> a language is "object-oriented".
>
> Going from that statement, you could argue that PostgreSQL is very
> object-oriented. Arrays are the least of the objecty features in
> the system: stored procedures, triggers and table inheritance are
> much more objectivy than arrays, although arrays could arguably
> be a part of Postgres' object friendliness.
>
> Looking for a more concise, more to-the-point answer? Ask a
> salesperson, I'm they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.
>
>
>> Also, these comma-delimited fields make creating reports with our reporting tool impossible.
>>
>
> Sounds like your reporting tool is horribly limited. Of course,
> if you knew that you'd be using this reporting tool, then it was
> your database designer's fault for not considering this limitation.
> If you chose the reporting tool after the database was designed, then
> it was a poor decision on your part.
>
> If you're looking for someone to blame (and it seems like you are)
> then you should just pick someone and start making up reasons. That's
> what politicians do with great success.
>
> Honestly ... what are you attempting to accomplish with this thread?
> It seems to me that you're trying get the people on this mailing list
> to help you justify being angry with your database designer.
>
It seems to me he's quite legitimately trying to determine if there is
more to his database designer's claim that these
comma separated fields being "object-oriented", than he might think
otherwise. PostgreSQL's (not very meaningful or helpful, IMO)
characterization of itself as an "object-relational database system" no
doubt leads to his very reasonable query whether he should
be taking something more into account than normal relational database
design principles.

I think it's uncalled for to be attacking him or his motives.

Eric