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

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

Tree view

Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis, )
 Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Brendan Jurd, )
  Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Chris Travers, )
   Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Brendan Jurd, )
 Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  ("Kevin Grittner", )
  Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis, )
 Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Peter Eisentraut, )
  Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Ned Lilly, )
  Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis, )
   Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Pavel Stehule, )
 Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis, )
   Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Josh Berkus, )
    Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Darren Duncan, )

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:

From: Ned Lilly
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?