On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jan Wieck wrote: > scott.marlowe wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > >> Jason Tesser wrote: > >> > >> > Quoted as gospel by various people: > >> >>> MySQL cannot even handle sub-queries yet. > >> > > >> >> BTW, is that really still true? I thought they had at least some > >> >> support for subqueries by now. > >> > > >> > yes sub queries in 4.1 which is still alpha > >> > >> "yes sub queries" is IMHO as precise as "yes foreign keys" ... look, > >> they have foreign key support, but do they have DEFERRED, ON DELETE SET > >> NULL, ON UPDATE CASCADE, all the stuff that makes it complete? > > > > They're working on those things, but as usual, MySQL got the big things > > mostly right, and the little things horribly wrong. If you create a > > table with type=innodb on a database server that isn't compiled to support > > innodb tables, it will silently fail, and silenly allow you to build > > non-existent foreign keys. > > Wasn't able to find any of their plans for match-types or deferrability.
Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was adding to your point. I.e. besides not being deferrable or cascading, mysql lets you declare fks relations that aren't actually there and throws no error. I have read on their mailing lists though that they are "working the problem," but MySQL tends to be developed not in public, near as I can tell. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
