|
if your experience started with a DB that supported Object Relational types such as http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/oracle/or-objects.html then it is reasonable to assume you would want to maintain those capabilities can you provide us one testcase we could try to work thru (using concrete Object Relational types) ? Martin __________________________________________ Disclaimer and Confidentiality/Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung / Note de déni et de confidentialité This message is confidential. If you should not be the intended receiver, then we ask politely to report. Each unauthorized forwarding or manufacturing of a copy is inadmissible. This message serves only for the exchange of information and has no legal binding effect. Due to the easy manipulation of emails we cannot take responsibility over the the contents. > Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:41:19 -0400 > From: subscriber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Object-Oriented Database? > > 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 Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. Check it out. |
