At 16:38 05/01/2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Russ Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Oh, that's a long story. We're a MySQL house that I've been trying to
> convert to PostgreSQL one way or the other for ages (with no success as
> yet). Note that the argument isn't about which letter the type
> truncation applies to, but whether it actually has anything to do
> with ACID at all in the first place. The key for me is that the result
of this argument has an
> effect on the question: "Is MySQL ACID compliant". If I'm right, it's
> not (which has political strategic benefits to me).
An even better thing to point out is that a DBA recommending MySQL isn't
a DBA at all. :)
Enjoy,
Stephen
I used to work for MySQL (a job's a job after all) and I say in all honesty
that MySQL is not ACID compliant. Furthermore, MySQL is so lacked in
functionality that it should be used for anything but the simplest of
solutions. A database engine that does not support referential integrity,
triggers, stored procedures, user defined types, etc should not be taken
seriously
---
Regards
John Dean,
co-author of Rekall,
the only alternative
to MS Access
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
