Message-ID: <286d0148-0fd0-49ff-ae85-d0628674f63f@postgresfriends.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 22:49:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page
Content-Language: en-US
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>, pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org
References: <20231226131047.493259f8@slate.karlpinc.com>
 <ZYs05Vx59gseoQEY@momjian.us> <2321548.1703625666@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
In-Reply-To: <2321548.1703625666@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/286d0148-0fd0-49ff-ae85-d0628674f63f%40postgresfriends.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 12/26/23 22:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.

Especially considering we hardly implement any of the object features at 
all.  We have table inheritance, and that's about it.
-- 
Vik Fearing