On Wed, 10 May 2000, Dylan Paul Thurston wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 12:22:15PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > A comment on SQL implemention of (3).
> >
> > Some people think that MySQL is not appropriate because it does not meet
> > the "ACID" test. I, however, do not think that this is a requirement AT
> > THAT LEVEL. The "ACID" requirements can be moved up to the 2-3 interface
> > and deficiencies in the database can be shimmed in between for most
> > users. (etc.)
>
> As a typical user, I think this is a mistake: fault tolerance really
> belongs in the database, and attempts to put it in elsewhere will
> fail.
In that case, you better worry about the underlying OS. Many of them fail.
> Furthermore, the alternative, PostgresSQL, is free (libre) and passes
> the ACID test,
Only on some operating systems.
> while MySQL is not free,
That is a "religious" reaction. MySQL is limited for only some users. For all
practical purposes, MySQL is "free" for a major portion of the potential user
base.
> so I don't see why you would consider MySQL at all.
PostgresSQL is more expensive in terms of cpu (probably not significant) and
administration complexity (VERY important)
> Any user that wants fault tolerance or an SQL database back-end will
> want it done right.
And they will probably consider PostgresSQL inadequate also.
My objection is that the arguments rejecting this potential backend are not
based on true facts.
I again repeat. The capabilities of MySQL (and others) ARE ADEQUATE for a
large portion of the userbase. Support for them should not be rejected simply
because they don't meet the needs of everyone.
