| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 22:40:11 |
| Message-ID: | ZYtWS6UT3yifLwHP@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
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 "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.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.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2023-12-27 21:53:53 | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2023-12-26 21:49:16 | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |