| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)karlpinc(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |
| Date: | 2023-12-26 21:21:06 |
| Message-ID: | 2321548.1703625666@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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"object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2023-12-26 21:49:16 | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-12-26 20:17:41 | Re: Describing Postgres as "object-relational" on the home page |