| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com" <Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Official' definition of ACID compliance? |
| Date: | 2006-01-05 21:25:21 |
| Message-ID: | 200601052225.23125.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 21:58 schrieb Scott Marlowe:
> But it's not consistent. Imagine we do the one where we take one from
> peter and give it to paul. If paul's account is stored in an int, and
> is at 2147483647, and we add one, it does not increment, and it does not
> cause an error that will force a transaction to roll back.
The effects of the commands on the database are not sensible with respect to
the intent of the commands, but the state of the database is consistent both
before and afterwards with respect to the integrity constraints defined
within the database. That's what this is all about. ACID is about
transaction processing, not about SQL data type semantics.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Travers | 2006-01-05 21:46:12 | Re: 'Official' definition of ACID compliance? |
| Previous Message | Joe Audette | 2006-01-05 21:13:23 | Re: Suse Linux 10.0 |