7 ms·

> If you're invoking your DB via C code, you will not get help with memory-safety. Interesting. I didn't know C and Haskell were the only languages. I though

> If you're invoking your DB via C code, you will not get help with memory-safety. Interesting. I didn't know C and Haskell were the only languages. I thought for sure there was at least one other memory safe language. > If you're invoking via non-Haskell code, you won't get help with transaction safety. Why would you not use transactions built into the database?! You still did not answer the question... If you can't do a transaction safely in any language besides Haskell... Then how do databases not written in Haskell do them all day everday?

mrkeen 4mo ago
>>>> they’re writing their code in languages which don’t enforce transaction safety >>> So every database in the world not designed in Haskell can't do a proper transaction? >> It's not the database, it's the lines of code making calls to the database. > Then how do databases not written in Haskell do them all day everday?
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
zadikian 4mo ago
The "transaction safety" part is confusing. What they mean is if you use SERIALIZABLE, transactions need to be retried, so your code inside the xact should be idempotent. I guess this is safer in Haskell because there are no variables, but that doesn't stop your code from having other side effects.