pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/05/2006 04:00:37 PM: > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:11:49 -0500 > Jaime Casanova <systemguards@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 1/5/06, Richard_D_Levine@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > <Richard_D_Levine@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/05/2006 01:59:52 PM: > > > <snip> > > > > so the problem is that MySQL _forces_ a consistent state but in > > > > the process it violates the integrity of the data > > > > > > > That is a contradiction in terms. Data integrity is a requirement > > > of database consistency. > > > > > > > > > > maybe, but it seems what happen in MySQL... because it forces a > > consistent state (one the fullfill the rules and constraints of the > > database) but when doing it it breaks or silently change your data... > > > > so the data can be saved because it's legal data but not correct > > data... then it is consistent to the machine but not for you... > > > > See, this is why I was looking for some sort of 'official' definition > of the term, to remove the ambiguity introduced by individual > interpretation. :) > > Anyone know who came up with the term in the first place? Two Points: Russ is right, nobody has answered his question. One link is a Wikipedia entry, and the other a college student's fulfillment of an assignment (excellent work, but not authoritative, unless there's a bibliography that I missed containing an authoritative source.) Second, if the integer that overflowed was a foreign key, would you agree that consistency has been destroyed? Answer yes. Another point: not all database constraints are coded in the database, but are upheld by the application using the database. If that application's SQL malfunctions without a rollback, consistency is shot.
