On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's still bolted on. The entire concept that "transactional integrity
> is optional" is ludicrous, IMHO. "Integrity" and "optional" are
> contradictory.
Good point. Also the problem of MyISAM and InnoDB RI :-)
> 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.
Thats a really nice thing for temporary tables, but "point in time"
backup is a much stonger argument :-)
/BL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
