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

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Date
Msg-id 4F99A6A0.5050706@agliodbs.com
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?
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
List pgsql-advocacy
On 4/25/12 11:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational
> features:
>
> (1) OIDs -- no longer on by default for user tables, and I can't
> remember seeing OIDs recommended for users. Used in system tables, but
> the main special property of OIDs (that they are hidden) is annoying
> more than anything else. Who wants to select from a system table without
> seeing the OIDs?
>
> (2) Inheritance -- useful feature, mostly for partitioning. Occasionally
> suggested to model actual inheritance in the OO sense, but often as one
> of a couple alternatives.
>
> (3) Dot function call syntax: "select foo.count from foo" -- surprising
> to most people, and I don't recall ever seeing it suggested for actual
> use. I would go so far as to say we should deprecate this syntax,
> because I think it's more likely to be some kind of mistake than
> anything else.

Um, you missed the really big one:

(4) User-definable Type system, with context-sensitive operators and
functions.

It's our type system which makes us an ORDBMS.  The other things are
largely decorations.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

pgsql-advocacy by date:

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