[oneweekwonder]

Wait, what is your end goal with a dynamic relational database?

Changing features/conventions will always create a new learning give.

What is dynamic-ness in RDBMS? It feels like you describing a problem that does not exist.

[tabtab]

The fact that non-relational or quasi-relational dynamic solutions already exist show there's a need for dynamism. And, I agree that SOME changes are necessary to get the target feature(s), such as dynamism, but it's logical to change as little as possible when inserting the features to reduce the learning curve.

Now, one may argue that add-ons to existing RDBMS give dynamic abilities, but as I suggested before, they are awkward and verbose. If dynamism is a primary feature one wants in an RDBMS, then the verbose approach is not desired.

I welcome other suggestions to achieve similar goals, but as of now, the D.R. suggestion seems the best balance. The goals are: dynamism as a primary feature, and a small learning curve for those already familiar with RDBMS. Go!