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.
> > 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
