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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-26 16:27:58
Message-ID: 1335457678.14211.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On ons, 2012-04-25 at 23:02 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational
> features:

> (1) OIDs

> (2) Inheritance

> (3) Dot function call syntax

I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs
there.

> 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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ned Lilly 2012-04-26 17:27:12 Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2012-04-26 12:12:47 Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?