Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:40:11 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>,
	pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page
Message-ID: <ZYtWS6UT3yifLwHP@momjian.us>
References: <20231226131047.493259f8@slate.karlpinc.com>
 <ZYs05Vx59gseoQEY@momjian.us>
 <2321548.1703625666@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <286d0148-0fd0-49ff-ae85-d0628674f63f@postgresfriends.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <286d0148-0fd0-49ff-ae85-d0628674f63f@postgresfriends.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZYtWS6UT3yifLwHP%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> 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 "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.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.

"extensible relational database" works for me.

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

  Only you can decide what is important to you.