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

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.