Re: 'Official' definition of ACID compliance?

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

---

Regards
John Dean,
co-author of Rekall,
the only alternative
to MS Access