From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>, pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page
In-reply-to: <ZYs05Vx59gseoQEY@momjian.us>
References: <20231226131047.493259f8@slate.karlpinc.com>
 <ZYs05Vx59gseoQEY@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:17:41 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2321547.1703625666.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 16:21:06 -0500
Message-ID: <2321548.1703625666@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2321548.1703625666%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 01:10:47PM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>> It may be better to just say "relational".

> I guess if I had to name this with no precedence, I would call it
> relational/extendable, but that seems even worse that what we have.

Call it an "extensible relational database"?  I agree that the
"object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.

			regards, tom lane