Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>On 10/25/2004 11:53 AM, nd02tsk(at)student(dot)hig(dot)se wrote:
>>>Is this true?
>>From a functional point of view, the two appear to do the same thing.
> Well, except for one difference. InnoDB will allow you refer to
> tables not controlled by the InnoDB table handler, whereas we don't
> have that problem with MVCC.
From MySQL gotchas:
1) And the same "feature" allow also to start a transaction, mix the two
tables and have a warning only after the "rollback" about the inability
destroy the updates done on non INNODB tables.
2) Create or delete and index or alter a table will recreate the entire
3) Our rollback is a O(1) operation not O(N) where N is the operations
performed during the transaction
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: CSN||Date: 2004-10-25 21:45:57|
|Subject: copy - fields enclosed by, ignore x lines|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-10-25 21:08:49|
|Subject: Re: shared buffers |