On Sunday, August 03, 2014 10:57:06 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 03/08/2014 22:23, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Sunday, August 03, 2014 10:04:50 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> On 03/08/2014 15:36, J. Roeleveld wrote: > >>>> Maybe this "protocol" is not the most clever solution, but it is > >>>> > >>>>> one which could be implemented without lots of overhead: > >>>>> Mainly, I was up to a "quick" solution which is working good enough > >>>>> for me: If the server has no bugs, why should it die? > >>>>> Moreover, if the server dies for some strange reasons, it is probably > >>>>> safer to re-queue the jobs again, anyway. > >>> > >>> With the kind of schedules I am working with (and I believe Alan will > >>> also > >>> end up with), restarting the whole process from the start can lead to > >>> issues. Finding out how far the process got before the service crashed > >>> can become rather complex. > >> > >> Yes, very much so. My first concern is the database cleanups - without > >> scheduler guarantees I'd need transactions in MySQL. > > > > Or you migrate to PostgreSQL, but that is OT :) > > Maybe, but also valid :-) > > I took one look at the schemas here and wondered "Why MySQL? This is > Postgres territory". It's a case of LAMP tunnel vision.
That and that people who start with LAMP don't learn SQL. This leads to code that is near impossible to port to a different database and when people actually want to do all the work to get the SQL to work on any database, the projects involved refuse the patches. -- Joost
