Hi Mark, All, On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Mark Leith<[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes. So if some error occurs while dealing with the second table (say, >> a constraint violation) then you could end up having processed only >> all of the first table, and half of the second with MyISAM, right? At >> least, that's how I understood it. > > Correct. > > But then, that's correct when you do it with the tables separately too > within LOCK/UNLOCK TABLES (because you can not ROLLBACK the changes to t1).
Yes. It's just that I got it into my head that MySQL supported the syntax as a workaround for atomic statements on multiple non-transactional tables, and it turned out not to be that. My point is mainly that if it doens't do that, it's 'just' syntactic sugar, and doesn't really add any functionality. (Don't get me wrong - I like the syntax as such for some particular cases) kind regards, -- Roland Bouman http://rpbouman.blogspot.com/ Author of "Pentaho Solutions: Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing with Pentaho and MySQL", http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470484322.html _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
