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

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

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date: 2012-04-27 07:34:14
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
2012/4/27 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 19:27 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs
>> there.
> I don't see that as particularly object-oriented. C has structs. But I
> can see how it's somewhat "in the spirit of" OO.

The term object-oriented has different sense for programming languages
and in databases.

See a Stonebraker's idea "Object Relational Databases"


Pavel Stehule

>> > 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.
> The reason why I brought this up is because it seems like we've been
> moving steadily *away* from these concepts the entire time I've been
> involved in postgres. I don't have that strong of an opinion on the
> subject, but it seems disingenuous to use "object" as the first word in
> the description.
> Regards,
>        Jeff Davis
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-04-28 19:16:08
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-04-27 07:05:52
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

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