Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:10:19 GMT
Message-ID: <%xryg.258989$IK3.21987_at_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
p Received on Fri Jul 28 2006 - 19:10:19 CEST