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
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 |
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 |