Re: Buglist

From: Bo Lorentsen <bl(at)netgroup(dot)dk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Roderick A(dot) Anderson" <raanders(at)acm(dot)org>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Buglist
Date: 2003-08-19 14:40:30
Message-ID: 1061304030.1923.168.camel@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guy Fraser 2003-08-19 14:41:32 Re: 7.3.4 RPM
Previous Message Devrim GUNDUZ 2003-08-19 14:26:18 Re: Buglist

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bo Lorentsen 2003-08-19 14:44:26 Re: Buglist
Previous Message Rahul_Iyer 2003-08-19 14:31:37 number of affected tuples