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

Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!

From: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!
Date: 2012-08-09 21:11:52
Message-ID: 50242798.6090707@darrenduncan.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Maybe call it "extensible-relational", which should be inclusive enough to 
include things like user-defined types / polymorphism / overloading / etc but 
should still put the emphasis on "relational".

Also, the above 2 words essentially rhyme / have 4 syllables each.

Personally I consider "relational" by itself to include user-defined types et 
al; however I support the longer term for marketing purposes with people that 
think of the term "relational" more narrowly to exclude user-defined types.

-- Darren Duncan

Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 20:15 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if it is time to re-examine the term object-relational and
>> how we explain it.
> 
> +1. 
> 
> My first suggestion to consider removing the word "object" fell flat,
> but I think improving the documentation around that term would help
> avoid confusion (including my confusion).
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1335420139.28653.59.camel@jdavis
> 
> Based on that thread, it seems to have something to do with
> extensibility, user-defined data types, polymorphism, and overloading.


In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Thomas KellererDate: 2012-08-09 21:38:51
Subject: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2012-08-09 20:56:43
Subject: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!

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