Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:55:48 GMT
Message-ID: <EJvyg.28236$>

paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:

>> paul c wrote:
>> ...
>> Not all dbms's are all that fat. Lee Fesperman's stuff over at 
>> 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.)

Again, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. A dbms must provide some facility to manage concurrency regardless whether the dbms is an rdbms. Received on Fri Jul 28 2006 - 23:55:48 CEST

Original text of this message