Hi all, On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jim Starkey <[email protected]> wrote: > I just don't get it. Why would anyone want to do an operation where they > couldn't tell if it failed, why it failed, or what it did? If it logged the > failures, I wouldn't mind. I can also understand why somebody might want it > for a non-transactional engine (though not why someone would *want* a > non-transactional fine) where there was going to be partial data load > whether they liked it or not. But a legitimate transactional system being > asked -- yea directed -- to lose unknown quantities of data, well, I just > don't get it.
I'd like to use this opportunity again to point to the SQLite construct ON CONFLICT: http://www.sqlite.org/lang_conflict.html and again I'd like to suggest drizzle implements this with an additional option ON CONFLICT LOG TO. It would preserve all of the original IGNORE functionality but allow people that want more to exert better contol. kind regards, Roland > > But there are lots of things I don't understand, like why we elected W. So, > whatever makes you guys happy, I guess... > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Roland Bouman http://rpbouman.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
