Re: Buglist
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Buglist |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28738.1061301797@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Buglist (Bo Lorentsen <bl@netgroup.dk>) |
Ответы |
Re: Buglist
Re: Buglist |
Список | pgsql-general |
Bo Lorentsen <bl@netgroup.dk> writes: > On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 14:37, Roderick A. Anderson wrote: >> My take on others research was that MySQL transaction >> model is a bubble gum and bailing wire add on not an integral part of >> MySQL. It _was_ tacked onto the top of the database so if either it or >> MySQL failed you were likely to loose data. > But this goes for 3.x have you tried 4.x and there InnoDB tables ? It's still bolted on. The entire concept that "transactional integrity is optional" is ludicrous, IMHO. "Integrity" and "optional" are contradictory. One thing you should ask about MySQL is where they keep the system's metadata (catalog data). In Postgres it's under transactional control just like everything else, which means it's (a) crash-safe and (b) rollback-able. This is why all DDL changes are rollback-able in PG. I honestly don't know what the corresponding arrangements are in MySQL ... but I suspect that even in an all-InnoDB database, there is critical system data that is outside the InnoDB table handler and thus not transaction-safe. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: