Re: ACID et al

From: vc <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 5 Dec 2005 11:02:46 -0800
Message-ID: <1133808898.178219.154100_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


paul c wrote:
> vc wrote:
> > paul c wrote:
> >
> >>I'm interested to see any comments the group has on something I'm
> >>(haphazardly) working on which in part has to do with guaranteeing the
> >>ACID properties without locking.
> >
> >
> > Locking (or any other concurrency mechanism) is relevant only to, well,
> > concurrent transactions.
>
> Yes, another way to say what I meant might be that such an implemention
> wouldn't support concurrent transactions, only concurrent users!

Well then, it's different matter altogether from saying that you have one-threaded execution only ! You have one read/write transaction and many concurrent read-only transactions, so you are back to the usual problem of making 'isolation' possible that is solved via locking or other means. No, as stated now, the problem does require some concurrency mechanism.

> > I do not know what 'stateless' has got to do with the price of fish,
> > but the lock manager is not needed.
>
> That sounds encouraging.

Well, in the new formulation (concurrent reads) it does not. Please see above. Received on Mon Dec 05 2005 - 20:02:46 CET

Original text of this message