>-Original Message-
>From: Martijn Tonies [mailto:m.ton...@upscene.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:40 PM
>To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
>
>Hi Jerry,
>
>>>>*Applications should not be log
Quoting Martijn Tonies out of context,
> A non transactional engine is of near no use.
I wouldn't say that ;-) It's of no use for transactional needs, and
indeed I rarely say it's a good idea to use a nontransactional engine,
but there are very important real-world uses for them.
--
MySQL Gene
Hi Jerry,
*Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical storage
or
access ethods change.*
Changing the storage engine for tables, for example from a transactional
to non-transactional engine, changes the database logic.
[JS] Is that really an example of Codd's rule #8? It
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Brawley [mailto:peter.braw...@earthlink.net]
>Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 3:02 PM
>To: Yusuf Khan
>Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
>
>>*Applications should not be log
-- Forwarded message --
From: Arthur Fuller
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
To: Yusuf Khan
Sad to say, you cannot casually switch engines and hope that everything
shall continue to work. This is after all the real
*Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical storage or
access ethods change.*
Changing the storage engine for tables, for example from a transactional
to non-transactional engine, changes the database logic.
PB
Yusuf Khan wrote:
Hello all
Does MySQL 5 conform to Codd's
Hello all
Does MySQL 5 conform to Codd's rule 8, i.e. physical data independence,
which says that:
*Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical storage or
access ethods change.*
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
