On 12/26/23 22:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 01:10:47PM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>>> It may be better to just say "relational".
>
>> I guess if I had to name this with no precedence, I would call it
>> relational/extendable, but that seems even worse that what we have.
>
> Call it an "extensible relational database"? I agree that the
> "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.
Especially considering we hardly implement any of the object features at
all. We have table inheritance, and that's about it.
--
Vik Fearing
