Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1335420139.28653.59.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational features: (1) OIDs -- no longer on by default for user tables, and I can't remember seeing OIDs recommended for users. Used in system tables, but the main special property of OIDs (that they are hidden) is annoying more than anything else. Who wants to select from a system table without seeing the OIDs? (2) Inheritance -- useful feature, mostly for partitioning. Occasionally suggested to model actual inheritance in the OO sense, but often as one of a couple alternatives. (3) Dot function call syntax: "select foo.count from foo" -- surprising to most people, and I don't recall ever seeing it suggested for actual use. I would go so far as to say we should deprecate this syntax, because I think it's more likely to be some kind of mistake than anything else. Given all this, why do we still call postgres an object-relational system (in the first sentence of our "About" page)? Is it time to drop "object" and just call ourselves a relational (and/or SQL) system? If someone comes to postgres for our OO support, they are probably going to be disappointed. Thoughts? Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: