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

From Ned Lilly
Subject Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date
Msg-id 4F998570.9010907@xtuple.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-advocacy
xTuple uses several inheritance features, and it's a big part of the
value-add for us.

(plug: come see John's talk at pgCon to learn more :)



On 4/26/2012 12:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>

--
Ned Lilly
President and CEO
xTuple
119 West York Street // Norfolk, VA 23510
tel. 757.461.3022 x101 // email: ned@xtuple.com <mailto:ned@xtuple.com>
Visit our company <http://www.xtuple.com>, community
<http://www.xtuple.org>, and join the innovation conversation
<http://www.nextbusinessblog.com>


pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?