Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page

On 12/27/23 13:53, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 12/26/23 5:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> 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 "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.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.
>>
>> "extensible relational database" works for me.
>
> Reading [1], I can align with dropping "object-" from the text.
>
> Currently -1 on swapping it with "extensible", given most folks describe
> PostgreSQL as a relational database.
>
> That said, I do personally describe one of PostgreSQL's best attributes
> to be its "extensibility," so I could warm up to incorporating it into
> "official verbiage" in the coming days.

Reading this I got a vision of a cat in a box:) At some point the state
has to resolve. Are you indicating that "extensible relational database"
is acceptable to you?

>
> Jonathan
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_database
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com