Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO

From: Pierra (pierra_at_sprynet.com)
Date: 01/06/04 

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:59:02 GMT

Nope, it was in a public utility. The database product in question is
(and has been) used in all industries. Having your data protected is
out of fashion these days because (many of) the current vendors
can't/won't provide the journalizing function. It's not a question of
cost, it's a question of how important your data is.

(by-the-by, what do you do when the backup media becomes corrupted and
you can no longer restore and 'roll forward" the executed transactions?
  Having the capability to restore your data both ways (forwards and
backwards) is something that no dba should be without. Another
interesting sidelight, when I attended a MS-SQL Server presentation a
number of years ago, and asked about the "roll-back" capability, the
presenter said "Why would you want to do that?" He apparently didn't
have data integrity in the forefront of his product."

   JMHO - ***

ps, what is the cost of journaling compared to up-time of your database? - d

Doug Scott wrote:

> Pierra,
>
>
>>My "problem" is not with the Commit verb. My "problem" is not being
>>able to "roll back" committed transactions to a point in time. And that
>>is a "feature" of "modern" database systems.
>
>
> Sure; if your company is willing to put up with the cost of journalising
> every transaction all the time, that's fine. You must be in the financial
> services area, where money is like water :-)
>
>
> ---
>
> Doug
>
> dwscott@ieee.org
>
>