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

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

From: Ned Lilly <ned(at)xtuple(dot)com>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-26 17:27:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
xTuple uses several inheritance features, and it's a big part of the 
value-add for us.

(plug: come see John's talk at pgCon to learn more :)

On 4/26/2012 12:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.

Ned Lilly
President and CEO
119 West York Street // Norfolk, VA 23510
tel. 757.461.3022 x101 // email: ned(at)xtuple(dot)com <mailto:ned(at)xtuple(dot)com>
Visit our company <>, community 
<>, and join the innovation conversation 

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-04-26 19:48:48
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-04-26 16:27:58
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

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