Message-ID: <1345317144.3099.49.camel@jdavis>
Subject: Re: Would like to contribute a section to docs for 9.3.
	Where to start?
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>, Postgres Documentation
	<pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:12:24 -0700
In-Reply-To: <502EA39E.4040301@gmx.net>
References: 
 <CAKt_Zfui6MvFezCkgUJ3h56WLjZE4OS66+YNv6b12WdrmvORZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKt_ZfuPkq2J+H0k-BOiGXJqpcP924_tLfz1TiOCHs0v3Eg8fQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<502EA39E.4040301@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 16:03 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/15/12 5:33 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> > So here is a very rough draft.  I would be interested in feedback as to
> > inaccuracies or omissions.  I would like to get the technical side right
> > before going into an editorial phase.
> >
> > Any feedback on the technical side?
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> Seriously, if we are trying to justify our use of seemingly standard 
> academic terms, we should have some references to where those are 
> defined or at least discussed.  Otherwise we are just begging the 
> question: PostgreSQL is object-relational because we say so.

I feel like the bar is becoming pretty high for this document. It must:

1. Settle on an accepted criteria for ORDBMS
2. Describe how postgres meets that criteria in a way that's:
    a. compelling to users
    b. connects with OOP so the users don't feel like it's a
       bait-and-switch or get confused by starting with the
       wrong expectation

I feel like making #1 compatible with 2(a) requires some creativity; and
#1 might be incompatible with 2(b) entirely.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis