MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231226131047.493259f8@slate.karlpinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231226131047.493259f8@slate.karlpinc.com>
From: Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey@proteus-tech.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 09:20:39 +0700
Message-ID: 
 <CACo3ShjP=OcV=HsKEQuMFkAL2Z0E20==pUjKbhUd1keH20qQ0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page
To: "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>
Cc: pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007acb37060d8890d3"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACo3ShjP%3DOcV%3DHsKEQuMFkAL2Z0E20%3D%3DpUjKbhUd1keH20qQ0w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000007acb37060d8890d3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Postgres is a fully-relational (in that it simultaneously adheres to all of
Codd's rules - something surprisingly rare) multi-paradigm database. It is
multi-paradigm because it is also simultaneously a native object database
and document database (JSONB support better than MongoDB), plus has ready
extensions to be a first class Geodesic Database and Vector Database (ala
AI) amongst others.

Just because "object" has become a bad word because of idiots who jump on
bandwagons and don't even understand the term does not remove its value.
There are still those of us around who used Postgres before it had SQL
support and understand how it works internally. Note that all this
extensibility is made achievable a great deal because it *is* underneath it
all an Object Database. But I agree that we could use better marketing
language to express the full potential of this remarkable open source
project.

  - - Ben Scherrey

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 2:11=E2=80=AFAM Karl O. Pinc <kop@karlpinc.com> wrote=
:

> Hi,
>
> I don't want to start bikeshedding here but maybe
> the answer is simple.
>
> The PG home page calls PG "object-relational".  I question
> whether this is useful.  Unlike in the 90's, nobody is
> really interested any more in object-oriented-everything
> and the typical person reading the home page probably
> does not know what an object-relational db is anyway.
>
> It may be better to just say "relational".
>
> In my opinion simpler is more clear and therefore better.
> (If another adjective is necessary I like "advanced".  I feel
> it balances "powerful" and, in a sense, substitutes
> for the "object" qualifer.  Because PG is more than
> just object-relational.)
>
> I am only asking whether the home page should be changed.
> Changing the "object-relational" description elsewhere/everywhere
> is another matter entirely.  I suppose I think this because
> I think the home page has a different, less sophisticated, audience.
>
> For my off-the-cuff mini-rant on this topic see the PostgeSQL
> Wikipedia talk page:
> Describing PG as relational v.s. object-relational in the lead
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PostgreSQL#Describing_PG_as_relational=
_v.s._object-relational_in_the_lead
>
> FWIW, I know of at least 4 toggles between "relational" and
> "object-relational" on the wikipedia page.  (It's been just
> "relational" for some time, but recently toggled back and forth.
> Feel free to explain on the talk page and change it from the
> current "relational" to "object-relational".  I won't
> undo.  I wrote the talk page entry mostly to keep the
> postgres-ignorant wikipedia enthusiasts from copy-pasting
> from the PG home page.)
>
> This is not worth spending much time on but I wanted to raise
> the issue, hoping it can be quickly resolved.  There seems
> to be no discussion in the pgsql-www mailing list archive.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karl <kop@karlpinc.com>
> Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
>                  -- Robert A. Heinlein
>
>
>

--0000000000007acb37060d8890d3
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Postgres is a fully-relational (in that it simultaneously=
 adheres to all of Codd&#39;s rules - something surprisingly rare) multi-pa=
radigm database. It is multi-paradigm because it is also simultaneously a n=
ative object database and document database (JSONB support better than Mong=
oDB), plus has ready extensions to be a first class Geodesic Database and V=
ector Database (ala AI) amongst others.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">Just because &quot;object&quot; has become a bad word because of =
idiots who jump on bandwagons and don&#39;t even understand the term does n=
ot remove its value. There are still those of us around who used Postgres b=
efore it had SQL support and understand how it works internally. Note that =
all this extensibility is made achievable a great deal because it *is* unde=
rneath it all an Object Database. But I agree that we could use better mark=
eting language to express the full potential of this remarkable open source=
 project.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=A0 - - Ben=
 Scherrey=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 2:11=E2=80=AFAM Karl O. Pinc &lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:kop@karlpinc.com">kop@karlpinc.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t want to start bikeshedding here but maybe<br>
the answer is simple.<br>
<br>
The PG home page calls PG &quot;object-relational&quot;.=C2=A0 I question<b=
r>
whether this is useful.=C2=A0 Unlike in the 90&#39;s, nobody is<br>
really interested any more in object-oriented-everything<br>
and the typical person reading the home page probably<br>
does not know what an object-relational db is anyway.<br>
<br>
It may be better to just say &quot;relational&quot;.<br>
<br>
In my opinion simpler is more clear and therefore better.<br>
(If another adjective is necessary I like &quot;advanced&quot;.=C2=A0 I fee=
l<br>
it balances &quot;powerful&quot; and, in a sense, substitutes<br>
for the &quot;object&quot; qualifer.=C2=A0 Because PG is more than<br>
just object-relational.)<br>
<br>
I am only asking whether the home page should be changed.<br>
Changing the &quot;object-relational&quot; description elsewhere/everywhere=
<br>
is another matter entirely.=C2=A0 I suppose I think this because<br>
I think the home page has a different, less sophisticated, audience.<br>
<br>
For my off-the-cuff mini-rant on this topic see the PostgeSQL<br>
Wikipedia talk page:<br>
Describing PG as relational v.s. object-relational in the lead<br>
<a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PostgreSQL#Describing_PG_as_r=
elational_v.s._object-relational_in_the_lead" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer"=
 target=3D"_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PostgreSQL#Describing=
_PG_as_relational_v.s._object-relational_in_the_lead</a><br>
<br>
FWIW, I know of at least 4 toggles between &quot;relational&quot; and<br>
&quot;object-relational&quot; on the wikipedia page.=C2=A0 (It&#39;s been j=
ust<br>
&quot;relational&quot; for some time, but recently toggled back and forth.<=
br>
Feel free to explain on the talk page and change it from the<br>
current &quot;relational&quot; to &quot;object-relational&quot;.=C2=A0 I wo=
n&#39;t<br>
undo.=C2=A0 I wrote the talk page entry mostly to keep the<br>
postgres-ignorant wikipedia enthusiasts from copy-pasting<br>
from the PG home page.)<br>
<br>
This is not worth spending much time on but I wanted to raise<br>
the issue, hoping it can be quickly resolved.=C2=A0 There seems<br>
to be no discussion in the pgsql-www mailing list archive.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Karl &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kop@karlpinc.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noref=
errer">kop@karlpinc.com</a>&gt;<br>
Free Software:=C2=A0 &quot;You don&#39;t pay back, you pay forward.&quot;<b=
r>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-- Robert A. =
Heinlein<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000007acb37060d8890d3--