Re: Transactions: good or bad?
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 02:36:53 -0400
Message-ID: <P21wa.367$xF5.71850115_at_mantis.golden.net>
"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:b9nu5p$2f7s$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message
> news:af3d9224.0305101732.631f6084_at_posting.google.com...
> > <snip>
> >
> > > All the optimisations in the world fail in the face of badly or
> maliciously
> > > coded user transactions.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Good.
>
> > >
> > > 1) Removing the concept of transactions from the Logical Relational
Data
> > > Model. It is unnecessacary, redundant and harmful. We were "sold a
bill
> of
> > > goods" back in the day. We should get rid of them now.
> > >
> > > 2) A Logical Relational Data Model that is thus, cleaner, more
powerful
> and
> > > can provide for complete independence of databases from applications.
> > >
> > > At least internally. Yes. Internally you can use whatever you like to
> ensure
> > > consistency. I have been at pains to point out that I'm not against
> > > transactions per se, just those exposed in the Logical Data Model.
> >
> > 1 and 2 sound promising, but, in order to implement, you will need to
> > have transactions internally, even if they are not exposed to the end
> > user.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > As a result you will wind up a database server that still
> > suffers from the same dramatic compromises and failures that today's
> > database servers have.
>
> > You will either have the cascading rollbacks
> > of MVCC
>
> I allow no rollbacks in my model (short of system failures)
> > It's time to put SQL and the Relational Model back into the
> > Universities and Software development companies where they belong, and
> > take all of that overly confuscated crap out of our trading desks and
> > factory floors.
>
> confuscated ?
>
> Dictionaries fails me.
That's because your dictionary thinks confuscated has something to do with seizing things by force omitting the contraction of "complicated obfuscation". Silly dictionary! Received on Tue May 13 2003 - 08:36:53 CEST