Re: "Transactions are bad, real bad" - discuss
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 02:39:40 -0400
Message-ID: <m51wa.368$yC5.71820385_at_mantis.golden.net>
"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:b9nutt$3o4e$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:a1_ua.181$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.
That's what the security function is for. Some users might not have access to any relation variables. That doesn't make relation variables any less core. Received on Tue May 13 2003 - 08:39:40 CEST