On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Ralf Mattes wrote:
> Yes, i agree. Mike's implementation is the way to go in a traditional
> realtional db (BTW, a question about oids: lurking on this list
> i overheard the idea of dropping oids. This would break a lot
> of my code! What's the last word on this ?).
The last we discussed in pgsql-hackers was that OIDs would not be
dropped...
> I think what's going on is a shift away from the OR-model. A
> lot of the OO features come from Postgres non-relational past.
> I don't see a lot of development emphasis on the OO side :-(
> mostly people work on getting PostgreSQL more ANSI-sql conforming.
> This by itself is very nice, but i think it would be a good
> idea for the developers to make a public statement saying
> how they envision PostgreSQLs future (i.e. will it still support
> the OO features or not).
Nobody is actively *removing* OO features...or at least not that
I'm aware of...we (the developers) are addressing problems as ppl are
bringing them up, and adding in those features required to bring in
ANSI-SQL compliancy...
That said, does ANSI-SQL compliancy mean that the OR model no
longer has a place? Quite frankly, I haven't got a clue...since I've
never used it. What I would recommend is anyone *actually* using it
should pop onto the pgsql-hackers mailing list, where this sort of stuff
is discussed, so that if someone does bring up removing a feature because
there doesn't appear to be any apparent use for it, they can pop up and
recommend against it.
I guess as far as that is concerned, is there anything that should
be added to the current regression tests that *test* whether we break some
part of the OR model?