From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rob Napier <rob(at)doitonce(dot)net(dot)au>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement! |
Date: | 2012-08-09 19:12:56 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDG3DvbZ+Y6Lun6ULUfT+KVtkXdsso-jpZ9e42_N6CCQw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
2012/8/9 Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On 9 August 2012 18:22, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> 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).
>
> I think we should call Postgres a multi-model database.
I don't think - PostgreSQL is not NoSQL, it is not column database -
the Stonebraker's category object relational is valid still.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-08-09 19:21:22 | Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement! |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-08-09 18:55:23 | Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement! |