On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 11:39, John Dean wrote: > At 16:38 05/01/2006, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Russ Brown (pickscrape@xxxxxxxxx) 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 PHP 5.0 has most of those features now. It's just the inability of the DBA to force things like certain tables to be used that I hate about it. That and even in V 5 it sill ignores row level foreign key definitions (they have to be done at the end of the column list) silently. I bet in another year or two MySQL will be breathing down the neck of PostgreSQL V 6.5.3 in terms of features and proper operation.
