| From: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ORDBMS (Was: Re: OIDS (Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darncolumns)) |
| Date: | 2000-01-27 02:03:25 |
| Message-ID: | 388FA76D.8A46CDB3@bitmead.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > The big hope I see for postgresql is to someday be a true combination of
> > ODBMS and RDBMS. Current commercial ODBMSes suck because their querying
> > sucks. Current commercial (O)RDBMS suck because their object features
> > really suck. There is no fundamental reason that this must be so.
>
> I've asked this one before, I believe, some ppl have referred to us as
> already being ORDBMS "material", but am not quite sure what that means in
> our case ... how "ORDBMS" are we, and what is required to extend that?
As I mentioned, I wrote a web page a long time ago where I try to
express the
minimum enhancments required to turn postgres into an ODBMS.
http://www.tech.com.au/postgres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Henry B. Hotz | 2000-01-27 02:09:14 | Re: OIDS (Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns) |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-01-27 02:01:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Inheritance, referential integrity and other constraints |