ORDBMS (Was: Re: OIDS (Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns)) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject ORDBMS (Was: Re: OIDS (Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns))
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.21.0001262112320.555-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: OIDS (Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns)  (Chris Bitmead <chris@bitmead.com>)
Responses Re: ORDBMS
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:

> > This past summer this sort of idea was discussed around these parts and
> > most of us came to the conclusion that a) OODBs are a pipe-dream at this
> > point in time, 
> 
> What does that mean?

Not sure, I missed that conversation ...

> > If we wanna become an OODBs we might as well say that now so we can start
> > by dropping SQL and the optimizer and the storage manager -- okay, I'm
> > being sarcastic (about OODBs).
> 
> The big hope I see for postgresql is to someday be a true combination of
> ODBMS and RDBMS. Current commercial ODBMSes suck because their querying
> sucks. Current commercial (O)RDBMS suck because their object features
> really suck. There is no fundamental reason that this must be so.

I've asked this one before, I believe, some ppl have referred to us as
already being ORDBMS "material", but am not quite sure what that means in
our case ... how "ORDBMS" are we, and what is required to extend that?

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chris Bitmead
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Inheritance, referential integrity and other constraints
Next
From: Chris Bitmead
Date:
Subject: Re: OIDS (Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns)