Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:10:19 GMT
Message-ID: <%xryg.258989$IK3.21987@pd7tw1no>


Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
> ...
> Not all dbms's are all that fat. Lee Fesperman's stuff over at
> http://www.firstsql.com/ is particularly lean. Selzer seems to want to
> make applications and databases fatter rather than the dbms, so I am not
> sure I follow you at all.

I meant, for example, that it should be possible to avoid having logical lock manager and session manager components in an rdbms, so users would be unconcerned with what arbitrary locking techniques a system chooses.

I'm not saying such components are 'evil', just that they hide the most fundamental nature of a concurrency solution by discouraging programmers from identifying the exact assertions that are germane. (Not talking about physical locking either.)

p Received on Fri Jul 28 2006 - 12:10:19 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US