Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T2YTZ-0005Pt-PU for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:09:22 +0000 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T2YTW-0007Ge-IK for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:09:20 +0000 Received: by obbuo13 with SMTP id uo13so6146376obb.19 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7c7XND7TmsC4iWXBIfBTIE7mTrSFYLes7ZKr4JK8NoI=; b=jWqLRgmDAMTSKIcDLplmg8MNzWnL0UkUvPvhADY029swscfda6srgsS01SH9bSd1fj nlGVx7GcjSsJeGvrOSsyATL6qIbx1kYKRRGaUXbHVoYoEufkxY2YfigU+GVqAl+w3RGR sS8DnaP+ulg6/dianN2lVM/UU4qP5rlJPkcxA9n92xWZCFgf6se0mPgyKL9gSNYfRgqy NRvrLO/hBcHZlCmb5UpwpNavEYqCB+V40Iu/sbbRl53hrjg8Ue86+7zAQ3CkVRrEJMyF bKBHmxMzvHqurbpN5U4lD+3oIMU0YY6GGpRX1HxAyRLP3vSI+nOggEwPk5w/QgWj2n8Z hZCQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.216.99 with SMTP id op3mr5245521obc.85.1345255756403; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.135.34 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <502EA39E.4040301@gmx.net> References: <502EA39E.4040301@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:09:16 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Would like to contribute a section to docs for 9.3. Where to start? From: Chris Travers To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: Postgres Documentation Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044786e77e14ce04c780c3d5 X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201208/34 X-Sequence-Number: 7427 --f46d044786e77e14ce04c780c3d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM, 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. > Good point. I found two interesting resources quickly which seem on point: http://infolab.usc.edu/csci585/Spring2010/den_ar/ordb.pdf which appears to be chapter 1 of http://www.amazon.com/Object-Relational-Database-Development-Plumbers-CD-ROM/dp/0130194603 and http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/Informix/www.informix.com/informix/corpinfo/zines/whitpprs/illuswp/wave.htm But this doesn't really get us beyond the "because we say so" given the connection between Informix and PostgreSQL. It really looks to me like Postges was given the name Object-Relational by Stonebreaker as a way of saying "here's what I am trying to play around with" and the databases which describe themselves in these terms seem either inspired by or forks of Postgres ;-). Best Wishes, Chris Travers --f46d044786e77e14ce04c780c3d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Peter E= isentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On 8/15/12 5:33 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
So here is a very rough draft. =A0I would be interested in feedback as to inaccuracies or omissions. =A0I would like to get the technical side right<= br> 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 academ= ic terms, we should have some references to where those are defined or at l= east discussed. =A0Otherwise we are just begging the question: PostgreSQL i= s object-relational because we say so.

Good point.

I fou= nd two interesting resources quickly which seem on point:


and


But this doesn't really get us beyond the "bec= ause we say so" given the connection between Informix and PostgreSQL.<= /div>

It really looks to me like Postges was given the n= ame Object-Relational by Stonebreaker as a way of saying "here's w= hat I am trying to play around with" and the databases which describe = themselves in these terms seem either inspired by or forks of Postgres ;-).=

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

--f46d044786e77e14ce04c780c3d5--