Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Дата
Msg-id 1335457678.14211.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Ответы Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Ned Lilly <ned@xtuple.com>)
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Список pgsql-advocacy
On ons, 2012-04-25 at 23:02 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational
> features:

> (1) OIDs

> (2) Inheritance

> (3) Dot function call syntax

I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs
there.

> Given all this, why do we still call postgres an object-relational
> system (in the first sentence of our "About" page)?

I think it's still a good mission statement of sorts, even if most
people don't use all the features.



В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Kevin Grittner"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Следующее
От: Ned Lilly
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?