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

On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:48 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Um, you missed the really big one:
>
> (4) User-definable Type system, with context-sensitive operators and
> functions.
>
> It's our type system which makes us an ORDBMS.  The other things are
> largely decorations.

Again, I don't see what is particularly "object-oriented" about PG's
extensible type system.

I can see that "object-oriented" has been redefined so much that it can
mean anything. So, I suppose it doesn't hurt to leave it in the
description.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis