| From: | "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: multimaster |
| Date: | 2007-06-02 13:58:15 |
| Message-ID: | 88daf38c0706020658k56cb79aev438b02e4c1142d0e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 6/2/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> I don't know if it's a general problem, but I've been involved in a
> using rails and it appears to have it's own way of declaring the
> database. It presumes to handle referential integrity and uniqueness in
> the application code (!).
I think you've been misled. True, Rails/ActiveRecord does bear the
signs of having been designed for MySQL/MyISAM, which has neither
transactions nor referential integrity, but this does not mean that
Rails does not support these constructs, or that Rails users don't use
them. I value my data integrity, so all my relations have RI, unique
constraints, null constraints, etc. as in any well-designed schema.
Alexander.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jasbinder Singh Bali | 2007-06-02 14:45:14 | Transactional DDL |
| Previous Message | Rodrigo Gonzalez | 2007-06-02 13:25:52 | Re: multimaster |