Hi,
I don't want to start bikeshedding here but maybe
the answer is simple.
The PG home page calls PG "object-relational". I question
whether this is useful. Unlike in the 90's, nobody is
really interested any more in object-oriented-everything
and the typical person reading the home page probably
does not know what an object-relational db is anyway.
It may be better to just say "relational".
In my opinion simpler is more clear and therefore better.
(If another adjective is necessary I like "advanced". I feel
it balances "powerful" and, in a sense, substitutes
for the "object" qualifer. Because PG is more than
just object-relational.)
I am only asking whether the home page should be changed.
Changing the "object-relational" description elsewhere/everywhere
is another matter entirely. I suppose I think this because
I think the home page has a different, less sophisticated, audience.
For my off-the-cuff mini-rant on this topic see the PostgeSQL
Wikipedia talk page:
Describing PG as relational v.s. object-relational in the lead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PostgreSQL#Describing_PG_as_relational_v.s._object-relational_in_the_lead
FWIW, I know of at least 4 toggles between "relational" and
"object-relational" on the wikipedia page. (It's been just
"relational" for some time, but recently toggled back and forth.
Feel free to explain on the talk page and change it from the
current "relational" to "object-relational". I won't
undo. I wrote the talk page entry mostly to keep the
postgres-ignorant wikipedia enthusiasts from copy-pasting
from the PG home page.)
This is not worth spending much time on but I wanted to raise
the issue, hoping it can be quickly resolved. There seems
to be no discussion in the pgsql-www mailing list archive.
Regards,
Karl <kop@karlpinc.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein