On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote on 09.08.2012 19:22:
>> 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.
>> 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).
> I think that most useres/developers don't really care whether it's an
> object relational database, a relational database or a relational database
> that has "object oriented" features/extensions.
Some people appear to be confused by it. I think it is worth clarifying
what we mean. The Wikipedia article on object-relational databases is not
helpful for understanding PostgreSQL, for example, as the concept of
implicit join conditions doesn't apply to us (and they offer no examples of
I am willing to write a first draft btw. Here are a list of
object-relational features I would highlight:
1) Table inheritance
2) Highly extensible type/cast/operator system including the ability to
use complex types for type prototyping and casting complex types to other
3) Function argument type detection
Are there any others?
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2012-08-10 02:13:03|
|Subject: Re: Australia: PostgreSQL Miniconf at LinuxConf
|Previous:||From: Thomas Kellerer||Date: 2012-08-09 21:38:51|
|Subject: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve
the 9.2 release announcement!|