Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date
Msg-id 1335457678.14211.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Ned Lilly <ned@xtuple.com>)
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-advocacy
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.



pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Next
From: Ned Lilly
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?