Re[3]: [PHP-DB] Re: MySql or postgre?

Greetings, Paul! At 30.11.2000, 11:30, you wrote: >>::shrug:: >>Transactions are a vital part of RDBMS. If its developers fail to >>understand this (or fail to implement them) - then... PD> You're arguing both sides of the question. Here you claim that the MySQL PD> developers fail to understand the importance of adding transaction support, PD> they are incompetent. Previously you argued that because they added PD> transaction support, they are incompetent just because they didn't do all PD> the work themselves. PD> In any case, I doubt that the developers have ever claimed that transactions PD> are *not* important, just that in their view other things (like speed) are PD> more important for the applications they needed. The addition of transaction PD> support happened because they were able to build on the work of others. You PD> characterize that as incompetence. I'd say it makes a lot of sense to use PD> that approach, rather than reinventing the wheel. There is only one side of the question: _If_ MySQL is a standards-compliant RDBMS then transactions are a vital part of it (read the SQL standard) and should be implemented in the core engine (as my quite limited programming experience tells me), not as "second party addons". If it is not - then be _honest_ about it, drop that annoying 'SQL' part, rename it to something like My-Flat-File-DB-with-SQL-like-interface. And stop comparing it with _real_ RDBMS's (be it Interbase, Postgres or Oracle). The problem is that most of MySQL's users are not knowledgeable enough to understand its limits, and MySQL's developers and advocates are sometimes reluctant to admit them... They only talk 'speed'... PD> I take it you never use any software you didn't write yourself, because PD> that would mean you weren't competent to write it? Please enlighten me, what leads you to such a conclusion? -- Yours, Alexey V. Borzov, Webmaster of RDW