| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)karlpinc(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |
| Date: | 2023-12-26 21:49:16 |
| Message-ID: | 286d0148-0fd0-49ff-ae85-d0628674f63f@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On 12/26/23 22:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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 "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.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.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-12-26 22:40:11 | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-12-26 21:21:06 | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |