On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:16:56PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote: > On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you made a field too short for some of the data which comes along > > there are two different approaches as to how to handle the situation. > > First is to identify the problem and roll back so that nothing even got > > started. This is what "real" RDMSs apparently do. > > Say what? A real RDBMS does not roll back transacations when you failed to > design your fields properly or when you modify a table. >
A real RDBMS keeps your well designed data consistent and safe, that's the point. > > Second is to keep going and minimize the damage as best you can. > > I dont really understand what youre trying to say. Keep going and minimize > damage? How would you do that when your fields are too small? And what has > this got to do with PostgreSQl v.s mySql anyway? > PostgreSQL HAS methods to help your data to be more safe... without using other table types, replication or such workarounds. No flames, just facts. > > This is what systems that face the "real world" are forced to do. > > Are you saying that "real" RDBMS' arent used in the real world? > Superficality vs. thoroughness is what i see in the real world as well as in this case. As already read in other posts to this thread there are reasons for superficality... even if i'm estimating it more as redundant work, but that's really up to the people with the actual problem/solution. I like to have a lot of work ONCE in a while without the need to care about it for the next few decades. > > There was a crack in this about MySQL being an SQL-looking front end > > to a file system. Actually very perceptive. You can use the filesytem > > to move stuff around and get away with it very nicesly. > > Perhaps that is becuase mySql seems to be very often used as a glorified > replacement for flatfiles, especially by webdesigners. > Doh... do we now talk about those who don't even known what they need a SQL frontend for? Thanks... out of (my) context ;-) > > As to losing data, I suspect you'd lose a lot more > > from PostgreSQL than MySQL on a failing hard drive. > > I seriously doubt that. > But i second that. Assuming one's using referetial integrity, definitely! More constistent data is more valuable data! With kind regards Simon
