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).
Based on that thread, it seems to have something to do with
extensibility, user-defined data types, polymorphism, and overloading.
But those things seem to matter only to extension authors, so I can't
think of a way to usefully describe object-relational to new users
(aside: those we call "users" are actually developers, so they will
expect that any object-relational features are intended for them).
The only object-relational things that a new user will see are the
things I mentioned in the email linked above: OIDs, inheritance, and dot
function call syntax. And I can't think of a way to describe those
things in a way that would connect with new users, either.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Alejandro Carrillo||Date: 2012-08-09 17:56:44|
|Subject: I wish be the Colombia's Regional Contact |
|Previous:||From: Chris Travers||Date: 2012-08-08 03:45:51|
|Subject: Re: Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!|