On 12/27/23 5:21 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 12/27/23 13:53, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On 12/26/23 5:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/23 22:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 01:10:47PM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>>>>>>> It may be better to just say "relational".
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess if I had to name this with no precedence, I would call it
>>>>>> relational/extendable, but that seems even worse that what we have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Call it an "extensible relational database"? I agree that the
>>>>> "object" part is out of date and no longer much of a focal point.
>>>>
>>>> Especially considering we hardly implement any of the object
>>>> features at
>>>> all. We have table inheritance, and that's about it.
>>>
>>> "extensible relational database" works for me.
>>
>> Reading [1], I can align with dropping "object-" from the text.
>>
>> Currently -1 on swapping it with "extensible", given most folks
>> describe PostgreSQL as a relational database.
>>
>> That said, I do personally describe one of PostgreSQL's best
>> attributes to be its "extensibility," so I could warm up to
>> incorporating it into "official verbiage" in the coming days.
>
> Reading this I got a vision of a cat in a box:) At some point the state
> has to resolve. Are you indicating that "extensible relational database"
> is acceptable to you?
There is a Schrödinger element here. I agree that "extensible relational
database" does accurately describe PostgreSQL, but I'm hesitant to
change the official language (outside of dropping "object") without
thinking more about it. I don't think we necessarily need to rush adding
another word without testing it a bit more.
Jonathan