Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:31:37 -0700
From: elein <elein@varlena.com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, elein <elein@varlena.com>,
	David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Tutorial
Message-ID: <20040722213137.C29889@cookie.varlena.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <20040722222104.GU7751@fetter.org>
	<20040722165713.A29889@cookie.varlena.com>
	<410064E3.8050704@joeconway.com>
	<200407222240.45890.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200407222240.45890.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i

Postgresql is not simply a relational database. It is an
OBJECT relational database.  It was designed to be so from
the start.  To pretend it was designed otherwise is to
deny its design and heritage and the original intent of
the the project.  c.f. the postgres papers, stonebraker, et.al.

And like tom said, "who said inheritance is not relational."
It need not break codds rules.

--elein


On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:40:45PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 22 July 2004 21:07, Joe Conway wrote:
> > elein wrote:
> > > I like inhertitance, but believe that the usefulness
> > > of our implementation is limited and so the documentation
> > > should focus on other areas.
> >
> > +1
> >
> 
> +1/2 (Since I don't like inheritence)
> 
> IMHO we ought to try to keep the _tutorial_ free of things that are generally 
> considered against relational design.  If we must keep them, move them into 
> thier own section and lable them accordingly. 
> 
> Robert Treat
> --- 
> Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster