Bill Moran wrote: > In response to "Robert Pepersack" <RPepersack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > >> I read the document on array data types. Do they have anything at all to do with PostgreSQL being "object-oriented"? >> > > If you want to be pedantic, not really. Technically, Postgres isn't > "object-oriented", it's "object-relational". > > But then again, C isn't considered to be object-oriented, but I've > seen some very clever object-oriented code written in C. Of course, > there are languages that have object-oriented syntax as more of the > core of their design, which usually is what's meant by saying that > a language is "object-oriented". > > Going from that statement, you could argue that PostgreSQL is very > object-oriented. Arrays are the least of the objecty features in > the system: stored procedures, triggers and table inheritance are > much more objectivy than arrays, although arrays could arguably > be a part of Postgres' object friendliness. > > Looking for a more concise, more to-the-point answer? Ask a > salesperson, I'm they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. > > >> Also, these comma-delimited fields make creating reports with our reporting tool impossible. >> > > Sounds like your reporting tool is horribly limited. Of course, > if you knew that you'd be using this reporting tool, then it was > your database designer's fault for not considering this limitation. > If you chose the reporting tool after the database was designed, then > it was a poor decision on your part. > > If you're looking for someone to blame (and it seems like you are) > then you should just pick someone and start making up reasons. That's > what politicians do with great success. > > Honestly ... what are you attempting to accomplish with this thread? > It seems to me that you're trying get the people on this mailing list > to help you justify being angry with your database designer. > It seems to me he's quite legitimately trying to determine if there is more to his database designer's claim that these comma separated fields being "object-oriented", than he might think otherwise. PostgreSQL's (not very meaningful or helpful, IMO) characterization of itself as an "object-relational database system" no doubt leads to his very reasonable query whether he should be taking something more into account than normal relational database design principles. I think it's uncalled for to be attacking him or his motives. Eric -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
