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

Re: PostgreSQL Object-Oriented Database?

From: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>
To: Eric Schwarzenbach <subscriber(at)blackbrook(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Object-Oriented Database?
Date: 2009-04-27 18:03:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
In response to Eric Schwarzenbach <subscriber(at)blackbrook(dot)org>:

> Bill Moran wrote:
> > 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.
> It seems to me he's quite legitimately trying to determine if there is
> more to his database designer's claim that these
> comma separated fields being "object-oriented", than he might think
> otherwise. PostgreSQL's (not very meaningful or helpful, IMO)
> characterization of itself as an "object-relational database system" no
> doubt leads to his very reasonable query whether he should
> be taking something more into account than normal relational database
> design principles.

It's possible.

> I think it's uncalled for to be attacking him or his motives.

If that's the case, then I'm the one who will look like a arse.

However, he's being very accusational of someone who isn't here to
defend.  He's also providing no evidence for or against what he
apparently wants us to resolve (i.e. he's posted no schema information,
not even a partial schema).  He's also asked a question that (really)
has no answer.  Is PostgreSQL object-oriented?  That's like asking if
those tires are gasoline or battery powered.  object-oriented is an
approach to programming, not a definition of a language.  I've seen
many a program written in an "object oriented language" that was
basically a functionally designed program.  Language features really
mean little after the code is already written.

PostgreSQL _certainly_ has a slew of features that make it conducive
to object oriented design.  If that's the answer he's looking for,
then there it is.

Reading between the lines, the original question was: "This guy is
making my life difficult, and he claims it's for this reason.  Is
that reason valid?"  And I fall back on my earlier statement: if
you're looking for someone to blame, just pick someone.  Hell, blame
me for all I care.  You wouldn't be the first person.  I mean, if he
really wants to learn if PG is OO or not, what the does his reporting
software have to do with the discussion?

Bill Moran

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Johan NelDate: 2009-04-27 18:11:55
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Object-Oriented Database?
Previous:From: Eric SchwarzenbachDate: 2009-04-27 17:41:19
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Object-Oriented Database?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group