Maybe call it "extensible-relational", which should be inclusive enough to
include things like user-defined types / polymorphism / overloading / etc but
should still put the emphasis on "relational".
Also, the above 2 words essentially rhyme / have 4 syllables each.
Personally I consider "relational" by itself to include user-defined types et
al; however I support the longer term for marketing purposes with people that
think of the term "relational" more narrowly to exclude user-defined types.
-- Darren Duncan
Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 20:15 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it is time to re-examine the term object-relational and
>> how we explain it.
>
> +1.
>
> My first suggestion to consider removing the word "object" fell flat,
> but I think improving the documentation around that term would help
> avoid confusion (including my confusion).
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1335420139.28653.59.camel@jdavis
>
> Based on that thread, it seems to have something to do with
> extensibility, user-defined data types, polymorphism, and overloading.
