> > Which part are you skeptical about?
>
> The part about this actually working like it's supposed to
> consistantly.
You think database integrity is a myth?
> And even if it does, the transaction rollbacks involved
> just really aren't that big a deal in most web app contexts.
I think they are, but I'm leaving that argument for another day.
What I'm saying is your whole database is at risk with MySQL, not just
transactions in progress when it died. If MySQL dies with its internal
structures in an inconsistent state you can lose an unlimited amount of
data. Not enough people understand this but just to show it's not just
me who's saying it....
"If the server crashes (?!) then restore from the backup and away you
go!" - Benjamin defending MySQL.
"However, I assert that the real problem with using MySQL is that does
not
handle failure cases. Most notable, MySQL does not have
roll-forward recovery in the case of some downtime event. You need to
perform a
full-table check to repair the tables before bringing them back
online, and even then there are no guarantees about what data will
survive. " - David Jeske
"I think MySql may be a great solution for READ-ONLY applications where
the database can be rebuilt from scratch within an acceptable recovery
time. Should you decide to use it for anything else, understand that you
may need to walk away from the collected data. " - Jan Zawadski
If your web pages are so pathetic that your data has no value at all,
then use MySQL.
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
