Re: PostgreSQL Object-Oriented Database?

In response to "Robert Pepersack" <RPepersack(at)mdinsurance(dot)state(dot)md(dot)us>:

> I read the document on array data types. Do they have anything at all to do with PostgreSQL being "object-oriented"?

If you want to be pedantic, not really. Technically, Postgres isn't
"object-oriented", it's "object-relational".

But then again, C isn't considered to be object-oriented, but I've
seen some very clever object-oriented code written in C. Of course,
there are languages that have object-oriented syntax as more of the
core of their design, which usually is what's meant by saying that
a language is "object-oriented".

Going from that statement, you could argue that PostgreSQL is very
object-oriented. Arrays are the least of the objecty features in
the system: stored procedures, triggers and table inheritance are
much more objectivy than arrays, although arrays could arguably
be a part of Postgres' object friendliness.

Looking for a more concise, more to-the-point answer? Ask a
salesperson, I'm they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

> Also, these comma-delimited fields make creating reports with our reporting tool impossible.

Sounds like your reporting tool is horribly limited. Of course,
if you knew that you'd be using this reporting tool, then it was
your database designer's fault for not considering this limitation.
If you chose the reporting tool after the database was designed, then
it was a poor decision on your part.

If you're looking for someone to blame (and it seems like you are)
then you should just pick someone and start making up reasons. That's
what politicians do with great success.

Honestly ... what are you attempting to accomplish with this thread?
It seems to me that you're trying get the people on this mailing list
to help you justify being angry with your database designer.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/