Re: computational model of transactions

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:46:11 GMT
Message-ID: <DYPzg.309004$IK3.168423@pd7tw1no>

Cimode wrote:

> paul c wrote:

>> Bob Badour wrote:

>>> paul c wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> paul c wrote:
>>>>> ...

...
>> Like give all 100,000 employees a 10% raise. Still, that kind of commit
>> is not what I call a logical commit, suggesting that a commit doesn't
>> mark a luw boundary. I've heard it called an 'intermediate', aka
>> physical, commit.

> I understand and agree with this last point.  As I mentionned this is a
> complex problem and a simplyistic solution just won't do it.
> ...

Sometimes it is actually handled, at a sort-of application level, by adding another attribute, say "update not finished" which all the rest of the transactions must respect, so as to prevent somebody from getting a 21% (1.10 X 1.10) raise if the power fails. Or a 'shadow' table which is later quickly swapped via some physical indirection. As far as RT is concerned, time is physical, not logical, no matter what anybody else says, ha ha!

p Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 16:46:11 CDT