On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 6:12 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 02:18:11PM -0500, Doug Tracy wrote: > > > From the URL https://www.postgresql.org/files/documentation/pdf/12/ > postgresql-12-A4.pdf > > Page xxxi > > PostgreSQL is an object-relational database management system (ORDBMS) based on > POSTGRES, Version 4.21 > > Page 7 > > 2.2. Concepts > > PostgreSQL is a relational database management system (RDBMS)
Uh, the first mention is talking about the object-relational aspects of Postgres, while the second is talking about the pure relational parts --- not sure if this can be improved.
The first mention is talking about the history of the project but clearly defines, as part of its history, that PostgreSQL is an "Object-Relational DBMS". However, when we go into describing concepts we forget about the "Object" part of what we are and just focus on the relational side. This omission seems fairly readily corrected if the "Object" part of our ORDBMS identity is truly something we wish to identify with and claim is different from just being an "RDBMS".
It could go something like:
PostgreSQL is an Object-Relational Database Management System. This is actually two separate concepts melded into a single implementation. The more well-known aspect of this is being a "Relational Database Management System". (the rest of the existing concept page does indeed then go one to describe what this means in terms of features). The reason we add "Object" to this is that our system is readily extensible through the creation of user-defined objects. The most common of these are functions and procedures, (blah blah blah)...
I haven't gone looking beyond the two sections pointed out in this thread but the observation that our non-frontmatter material ignores the "object" part of our "object-relational" classification seems to have merit.