pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 01/05/2006 04:00:37 PM:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:11:49 -0500
> Jaime Casanova <systemguards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/5/06, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com
> > <Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 01/05/2006 01:59:52 PM:
> > > <snip>
> > > > so the problem is that MySQL _forces_ a consistent state but in
> > > > the process it violates the integrity of the data
> > > >
> > > That is a contradiction in terms. Data integrity is a requirement
> > > of database consistency.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > maybe, but it seems what happen in MySQL... because it forces a
> > consistent state (one the fullfill the rules and constraints of the
> > database) but when doing it it breaks or silently change your data...
> >
> > so the data can be saved because it's legal data but not correct
> > data... then it is consistent to the machine but not for you...
> >
>
> See, this is why I was looking for some sort of 'official' definition
> of the term, to remove the ambiguity introduced by individual
> interpretation. :)
>
> Anyone know who came up with the term in the first place?
Two Points: Russ is right, nobody has answered his question. One link is a
Wikipedia entry, and the other a college student's fulfillment of an
assignment (excellent work, but not authoritative, unless there's a
bibliography that I missed containing an authoritative source.)
Second, if the integer that overflowed was a foreign key, would you agree
that consistency has been destroyed? Answer yes.
Another point: not all database constraints are coded in the database, but
are upheld by the application using the database. If that application's
SQL malfunctions without a rollback, consistency is shot.
