On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 13:24, Scott Marlowe wrote: > 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 should be MySQL 5... ugh. not enough coffee or sleep lately
