public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
To: Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
To: Vik Fearing <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Karl O. Pinc <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 10:24:30 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On 12/27/23 5:21 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 12/27/23 13:53, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On 12/26/23 5:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/23 22:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 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 "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.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.
>>
>> Reading [1], I can align with dropping "object-" from the text.
>>
>> Currently -1 on swapping it with "extensible", given most folks 
>> describe PostgreSQL as a relational database.
>>
>> That said, I do personally describe one of PostgreSQL's best 
>> attributes to be its "extensibility," so I could warm up to 
>> incorporating it into "official verbiage" in the coming days.
> 
> Reading this I got a vision of a cat in a box:) At some point the state 
> has to resolve. Are you indicating that "extensible relational database" 
> is acceptable to you?

There is a Schrödinger element here. I agree that "extensible relational 
database" does accurately describe PostgreSQL, but I'm hesitant to 
change the official language (outside of dropping "object") without 
thinking more about it. I don't think we necessarily need to rush adding 
another word without testing it a bit more.

Jonathan


Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP_signature.asc (840B, 2-OpenPGP_signature.asc)
  download

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox