On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 16:03 -0400, Peter Eisentraut 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.
I feel like the bar is becoming pretty high for this document. It must:
1. Settle on an accepted criteria for ORDBMS
2. Describe how postgres meets that criteria in a way that's:
a. compelling to users
b. connects with OOP so the users don't feel like it's a
bait-and-switch or get confused by starting with the
wrong expectation
I feel like making #1 compatible with 2(a) requires some creativity; and
#1 might be incompatible with 2(b) entirely.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
