Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
От | Ned Lilly |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F998570.9010907@xtuple.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
xTuple uses several inheritance features, and it's a big part of the value-add for us. (plug: come see John's talk at pgCon to learn more :) On 4/26/2012 12:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2012-04-25 at 23:02 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >> As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational >> features: >> (1) OIDs >> (2) Inheritance >> (3) Dot function call syntax > I think having composite types and functions using them also belongs > there. > >> Given all this, why do we still call postgres an object-relational >> system (in the first sentence of our "About" page)? > I think it's still a good mission statement of sorts, even if most > people don't use all the features. > > > -- Ned Lilly President and CEO xTuple 119 West York Street // Norfolk, VA 23510 tel. 757.461.3022 x101 // email: ned@xtuple.com <mailto:ned@xtuple.com> Visit our company <http://www.xtuple.com>, community <http://www.xtuple.org>, and join the innovation conversation <http://www.nextbusinessblog.com>
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: