Re: "Transactions are bad, real bad" - discuss

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:a1_ua.181$uz4.52354115_at_mantis.golden.net...
> "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
[snip]
> > What I'm thinking is that the language available on a DBMS is a nesting of
> > subsequently more expressive languages.
> >
> > So there might be a basic relational core - without generalised transitive
> > closure - that could safely be used by even malicious database users. From
> > there, the more trusted you are, the more powerful syntax you are
> allowed -all
> > the way up to full expressivity of say some functional language.
> >
> > I'm not sure how such a language would look, and I guess that logically it
> > would actually be multiple languages and if only the relational subset was
> > seen as the "DBMS language", then maybe I have agreed with your point, we
> > don't necessarily want full expressivity in the core relational model...
>
> I don't see how we will create user-defined operations for user-defined
> types without full expressivity. Personally, I think user-defined types are
> core.

Agreed, but defining new data types can be limited to trusted users who would have access to full expressivity. Or rather, all users might have the ability to create new types, but only some users would be allowed to create fully powerful types.

Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services Received on Mon May 12 2003 - 12:59:05 CEST