From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at>
> Now I'm not saying that this feature should not go in (I set it to
> "ready for committer", because I see no technical flaw with the
> implementation), but it remains debatable if we want the feature or not.
Oh, yes, thank you very much for supporting this and other relevant two threads!
> I certainly can see David's point of view. And we don't view MySQL as
> a role model that we want to emulate.
Yes, what MySQL was over ten years ago would not be a role model for us. OTOH,
recent MySQL under Oracle should be improving much -- adopting InnoDB as a
default storage engine, transactional data dictionary, etc. (Somewhat
offtopic, but their documentation quality is great.)
> All these things are annoying to users, but we'd rather take that than
> the complaints that a database got corrupted because somebody didn't read
> the documentation carefully.
Hmm, if that were the case, then some people would say the unlogged-table based
approach is also be dangerous, saying "Users don't read the manual carefully
and easily think that making all tables unlogged is good for performance."
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
