Re: Transactions: good or bad?

From: Daniel S. Guntermann <guntermann_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:02:21 GMT
Message-ID: <1M0wa.69819$4P1.6332081_at_newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>


"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news: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)

>

> Is deadlock a system failure?
>
>

> > > 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!
>
>
>

Geez. I stand corrected. I was assuming it was the contraction for "confused obfuscation." :-)

Regards,

Dan Guntermann Received on Tue May 13 2003 - 09:02:21 CEST

Original text of this message