Dropping MyISAM seems like the right thing to do here. DBMail 2.0 could reasonably require MySQL 4.0 or 4.1 as its minimum, along with whatever recent version of PostgreSQL supports needed features, too (yeah yeah, flame away that PostgreSQL supports everything we need and always has).
Aaron ""Christian G. Warden"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:39:19AM +0100, Ilja Booij wrote: > > >The first problem led to a inconsistent database (the insert to > > >physmessage succeeded) - this could be easily solved using > > >transactions. > > >I found a thread about using transaction on the dbmail list - are there > > >plans to use transactions for 2.0 ? > > We'd like to use transactions, and make better use of foreign keys. It > > would be easiest to ditch MySQL ISAM tables completely, so that the we > > can use those features, and let > > the database handle the integrity of the tables. The less db-handling > > code in DBMail, the better. > > > > I guess we need some discussions about this in this list and here at > > IC&S. > > here's one vote for ditching myisam support and adding transactions. > > xn > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > --
