| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey(at)proteus-tech(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)karlpinc(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |
| Date: | 2024-01-02 08:24:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1aaa9762-5fb0-4d86-8788-62768b9b7a3e@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On 1/2/24 07:19, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
> I like the suggested text. I think it's a shame to drop the word
> object, however. Despite it getting a bad name amongst the academics,
> it's still very much in use and often quite useful. If someone's
> searching for an object database I believe Postgres should pop up high
> in the list.
I am curious why you think this. What features of an object database do
you think Postgres has to merit ranking high in search results?
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2024-01-02 15:07:34 | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |
| Previous Message | Akshat Jaimini | 2024-01-02 08:07:25 | [INFO] Regarding bugs in Testing Harness |