Re: relations aren't types?

From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:24:32 GMT
Message-ID: <Pd6Ib.692647$Tr4.1730745@attbi_s03>

"Lauri Pietarinen" <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message news:bsqf7f$303$1_at_nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> My understanding is that in the scope of relational databases,
> atomicity is defined in terms of whether the relational operators can
> "see" the value
> or not without the help of "non-relational", or scalar operators.

Interesting. I wonder if that's definition Bob is using, thus causing our disconnect about atomicity. Where did you get this definition, may I ask?

Marshall Received on Mon Dec 29 2003 - 21:24:32 CST