Re: Is relational theory irrelevant?
From: Serge Rielau <srielau_at_ca.eye-bee-m.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:59:11 -0500
Message-ID: <bph01j$i90$1_at_hanover.torolab.ibm.com>
>
>
> Your example is flawed. The above log cannot prove you did your job, because
> the table itself is not tied to the success (or otherwise) of the external
> action. It is trivial to spoof a successful mail send. I.e.
>
> INSERT INTO log SELECT user,
> 'EMAIL SUCCESS' as success
> FROM inventory
> WHERE os = 'W2K';
>
This is turning into a legal argument.
First the writer of the query doesn'thave to be the one executing it (through some interface).
Maybe I should have used "document" rather than "prove". Documents can be forged, so can most socalled proof.
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:59:11 -0500
Message-ID: <bph01j$i90$1_at_hanover.torolab.ibm.com>
Paul Vernon wrote:
> "Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.eye-bee-m.com> wrote in message
> news:bpfsbs$dc6$1_at_hanover.torolab.ibm.com...
>
...
>>
>>INSERT INTO log SELECT user,
>> sendmail('Beware of virus x', user) as success
>> FROM inventory
>> WHERE os = 'W2K';
>
>
> Your example is flawed. The above log cannot prove you did your job, because
> the table itself is not tied to the success (or otherwise) of the external
> action. It is trivial to spoof a successful mail send. I.e.
>
> INSERT INTO log SELECT user,
> 'EMAIL SUCCESS' as success
> FROM inventory
> WHERE os = 'W2K';
>
This is turning into a legal argument.
First the writer of the query doesn'thave to be the one executing it (through some interface).
Maybe I should have used "document" rather than "prove". Documents can be forged, so can most socalled proof.
Cheers
Serge
-- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto LabReceived on Thu Nov 20 2003 - 00:59:11 CET