Re: 'Official' definition of ACID compliance?

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(at)gmail(dot)com) 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