On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/12 5:33 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > >> So here is a very rough draft. I would be interested in feedback as to >> inaccuracies or omissions. I would like to get the technical side right >> before going into an editorial phase. >> >> Any feedback on the technical side? >> > > [citation needed] > > Seriously, if we are trying to justify our use of seemingly standard > academic terms, we should have some references to where those are defined > or at least discussed. Otherwise we are just begging the question: > PostgreSQL is object-relational because we say so. > Good point. I found two interesting resources quickly which seem on point: http://infolab.usc.edu/csci585/Spring2010/den_ar/ordb.pdf which appears to be chapter 1 of http://www.amazon.com/Object-Relational-Database-Development-Plumbers-CD-ROM/dp/0130194603 and http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/Informix/www.informix.com/informix/corpinfo/zines/whitpprs/illuswp/wave.htm But this doesn't really get us beyond the "because we say so" given the connection between Informix and PostgreSQL. It really looks to me like Postges was given the name Object-Relational by Stonebreaker as a way of saying "here's what I am trying to play around with" and the databases which describe themselves in these terms seem either inspired by or forks of Postgres ;-). Best Wishes, Chris Travers
