On 12/26/23 5:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> 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 "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.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.
>
> "extensible relational database" works for me.
Reading [1], I can align with dropping "object-" from the text.
Currently -1 on swapping it with "extensible", given most folks describe
PostgreSQL as a relational database.
That said, I do personally describe one of PostgreSQL's best attributes
to be its "extensibility," so I could warm up to incorporating it into
"official verbiage" in the coming days.
Jonathan
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_database
