Jeff Davis wrote on 09.08.2012 19:22:
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
I think that most useres/developers don't really care whether it's an
object relational database, a relational database or a relational database
that has "object oriented" features/extensions.
After all, Oracle offers the same set of "object oriented" features (except
for table inheritance but with more object oriented types) and they never attribute
themselves as object relational. I think when 8i came out they simply called that
"object relational features" (I don't recall the exact wording, that's a long
time ago)
Why not simply do the same thing and call Postgres a relational database?
In the manual (or the homepage, maybe the FAQ) it could be explained in more detail what
the "object-relational" extensions are and how the user/developer can benefit from them.
My 0.02€
