Re: "Transactions are bad, real bad" - discuss
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 22:19:20 -0400
Message-ID: <n_Zua.180$Vw4.52234334_at_mantis.golden.net>
> <Shrug>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 22:19:20 -0400
Message-ID: <n_Zua.180$Vw4.52234334_at_mantis.golden.net>
"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:b9gks7$3ki0$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> news:4cPua.788670$L1.222709_at_sccrnsc02...
> > "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
> news:b9fvd8$19ru$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> > > [...]
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.
> >
> >
> > > Transactions that are atomic in time are just not transactions at all
in
> any
> > > meaningful sense
> >
> >
> > Do you have an alternate name for them? (Admittedly a less important
> > question.) "Whole-DBvar updates?"
>
> <Shrug>
>Received on Sat May 10 2003 - 04:19:20 CEST
> Take your pick:
> Nested Updates
> Intstant Transactions
> dbvar update
Why not just "variable assignment"?