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.
