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

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

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-26 19:48:48
Message-ID: 4F99A6A0.5050706@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On 4/25/12 11:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational
> features:
> 
> (1) OIDs -- no longer on by default for user tables, and I can't
> remember seeing OIDs recommended for users. Used in system tables, but
> the main special property of OIDs (that they are hidden) is annoying
> more than anything else. Who wants to select from a system table without
> seeing the OIDs?
> 
> (2) Inheritance -- useful feature, mostly for partitioning. Occasionally
> suggested to model actual inheritance in the OO sense, but often as one
> of a couple alternatives.
> 
> (3) Dot function call syntax: "select foo.count from foo" -- surprising
> to most people, and I don't recall ever seeing it suggested for actual
> use. I would go so far as to say we should deprecate this syntax,
> because I think it's more likely to be some kind of mistake than
> anything else.

Um, you missed the really big one:

(4) User-definable Type system, with context-sensitive operators and
functions.

It's our type system which makes us an ORDBMS.  The other things are
largely decorations.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-04-27 06:44:48
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Previous:From: Ned LillyDate: 2012-04-26 17:27:12
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

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