> PostgREST's approach is not like PowerBuilder's. My intent was not to equate PostgREST with PowerBuilder, but instead to use the latter as a well-known examp

> PostgREST's approach is not like PowerBuilder's. My intent was not to equate PostgREST with PowerBuilder, but instead to use the latter as a well-known example of a two-tier system. > PowerBuilder didn't encourage you to know your DB ins-and-outs and use all of its features. While PowerBuilder was "DB agnostic", as you identified, non-trivial applications relied heavily on RDBMS logic (stored procs, views, etc.). So while PB may not have "encouraged" RDBMS specific implementations, those which I encountered were never without. Granted, the client connection protocol vastly differs between the two offerings. Yet the system architecture is shared IMHO.