Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F99A6A0.5050706@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS?
Re: Should we drop the "object" from ORDBMS? |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On 4/25/12 11:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > As far as I can tell, postgresql has the following object-relational > features: > > (1) OIDs -- no longer on by default for user tables, and I can't > remember seeing OIDs recommended for users. Used in system tables, but > the main special property of OIDs (that they are hidden) is annoying > more than anything else. Who wants to select from a system table without > seeing the OIDs? > > (2) Inheritance -- useful feature, mostly for partitioning. Occasionally > suggested to model actual inheritance in the OO sense, but often as one > of a couple alternatives. > > (3) Dot function call syntax: "select foo.count from foo" -- surprising > to most people, and I don't recall ever seeing it suggested for actual > use. I would go so far as to say we should deprecate this syntax, > because I think it's more likely to be some kind of mistake than > anything else. Um, you missed the really big one: (4) User-definable Type system, with context-sensitive operators and functions. It's our type system which makes us an ORDBMS. The other things are largely decorations. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: