Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:17:41 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>
Cc: pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page
Message-ID: <ZYs05Vx59gseoQEY@momjian.us>
References: <20231226131047.493259f8@slate.karlpinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231226131047.493259f8@slate.karlpinc.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZYs05Vx59gseoQEY%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 01:10:47PM -0600, Karl O. Pinc 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".

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.  I
do think we need something to explain that Postgres is more than simply
relational since our extendibility, along with our open source
development, are what make us popular.

I agree "object" isn't a great word, and as I heard was just used in the
1990's because object languages were the hot topic.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.