Re: PostgreSQL (fwd)

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Ed Loehr wrote:
>
> > Kaiq may be wrong, possibly not knowing of more informative conversations
> > going on in the private pgsql mailing lists (pg-core, etc.), but he is not
> > coming from left field.
>
> the 'more informative conversations' were held on the totally public
> pgsql-hackers mailing list, and usually revolve around work that Chris
> Bitmead (damn, I hope I keep geting this name right?) is doing towards
> fixing and extending this capability ...

True, Chris Bitmead has recently (Feb 2000) been actively arguing for some
of his OO ideas (Adien, you might appreciate
http://www.tech.com.au/postgres/) But perhaps one should consider Kaiq's
assessment in light of these comments from the totally public pgsql-hackers
list Mark mentioned:

"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, and b) this is not worth
doing in PostgreSQL as it stands.

- Peter Eisenstraut, pgsql-hackers, Jan. 26, 2000
(http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=577944857)

"PostgreSQLs moving to SQL92 has dropped most of OO features
as non-compliant ;( For example inheritance is used my some
as a convienient means of creating tables with some shared
column names/types and adding anything to make it more has
met vocal resiostance on this net as being incompatible with
current usage."

- Hanna Krossing, pgsql-hackers, Jan. 27, 2000
(http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=578316879)

In fairness, clearly, his assessment was not "totally inaccurate and
uninformed."

Regards,
Ed Loehr