On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Kellerer
<spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote on 09.08.2012 19:22:
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 20:15 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
I wonder if it is time to re-examine the term object-relational and
how we explain it.
My first suggestion to consider removing the word "object" fell flat,
but I think improving the documentation around that term would help
avoid confusion (including my confusion).
I think that most useres/developers don't really care whether it's an
object relational database, a relational database or a relational database
that has "object oriented" features/extensions.
Some people appear to be confused by it. I think it is worth clarifying what we mean. The Wikipedia article on object-relational databases is not helpful for understanding PostgreSQL, for example, as the concept of implicit join conditions doesn't apply to us (and they offer no examples of table inheritance).
I am willing to write a first draft btw. Here are a list of object-relational features I would highlight:
1) Table inheritance
2) Highly extensible type/cast/operator system including the ability to use complex types for type prototyping and casting complex types to other forms.
3) Function argument type detection
Are there any others?
Best wishes,
Chris Travers