Re: globals besides relvars?
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:45:21 -0400
"goes into" implies physicality. The relational model demands that users manipulate globally accessible data only as relvars, but this says nothing about how or where anything actually gets stored.
No 'function' requires global state information.
> It needs to store this somewhere.
One would represent the datum as a value in a global relvar, and one has no need for a function.
> Presumably there's a setTimeZone
> function also.
We don't care. How it represents the datum matters. Where it stores it does not matter at all.
> Is it allowable
> to have a storage that's bound to a function in the catalog, perhaps?
As long as the binding is only for performance and is not logically exposed to the user in any way, anything goes.
> Earlier I was thinking about operator identity. (The + operator
> has zero as the identity value; multiply has 1.) This seems
> like it associates with a function as well. But this idea doesn't
> seem so problematic, because it's just a constant.
The identity value for an operator exists even if one doesn't store it. Received on Mon Jul 28 2003 - 16:45:21 CEST