Re: ACID et al

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:4Bhlf.56927$Eq5.13886_at_pd7tw1no...

>
> Thanks, everybody's comments have been helpful in clarifying the bits
> and pieces, for me even if nobody else.
>
>
> I was throwing the word 'concurrency' around too loosely. I think I
> shouldn't have used it in the first place without defining it more
> precisely. It might have been better to say there would effectively be
> *no* concurrency, as far as the db is concerned. Instead of saying
> 'concurrent users', I should have said everything, as far as the db is
> concerned, is serial (to use vc's word). The only activity that would
> be concurrent would be whatever the users are up to outside the db.

There has been some development in the area of distributed applications since the monster lock manager but don't ask me. Received on Tue Dec 06 2005 - 16:30:26 CET