Jeff Davis wrote on 09.08.2012 19:22:
> 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.
> 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 that most useres/developers don't really care whether it's an
object relational database, a relational database or a relational database
that has "object oriented" features/extensions.
After all, Oracle offers the same set of "object oriented" features (except
for table inheritance but with more object oriented types) and they never attribute
themselves as object relational. I think when 8i came out they simply called that
"object relational features" (I don't recall the exact wording, that's a long
Why not simply do the same thing and call Postgres a relational database?
In the manual (or the homepage, maybe the FAQ) it could be explained in more detail what
the "object-relational" extensions are and how the user/developer can benefit from them.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Chris Travers||Date: 2012-08-10 00:17:50|
|Subject: Re: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label,
was Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!|
|Previous:||From: Darren Duncan||Date: 2012-08-09 21:11:52|
|Subject: Re: What do do about Object-Relational label, was
Help me improve the 9.2 release announcement!|