3 ms·
I would agree from a database perspective, it's an inconsistency. From the application user's perspective though, the information can get corrupted in the sense
by dack 11y ago
I would agree from a database perspective, it's an inconsistency. From the application user's perspective though, the information can get corrupted in the sense that the original intent of the transactions is no longer clear, and can't be recovered. I think it's not always obvious from which perspective Aphyr is writing (database or user), so the meaning could be somewhat ambiguous.
While an unexpected inconsistency like this is certainly bad enough, I tend to agree with Vadim to reserve the word "corruption" for the situation in which the database actually stores garbage data such that it can't actually read back information properly.
- andy_ppp 11y agoWould it not be preferable for things to break in a piece of banking software rather than be incorrect but no one notices there is a problem. I hope they are trying to fix these issues rather than be sensitive.
- dack 11y agoAll databases that I know of have settings that allow you to control the consistency of your transactions in the documentation. I don't think it's necessarily the problem that this particular situation is inconsistent - I just think the documentation is the problem, since they claim one thing and then do another. But yeah, I totally agree they should fix either the implementation or documentation - the blog post is far from sufficient in educating their customers about this situation!