Re: computational model of transactions

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:16:54 GMT
Message-ID: <W9Szg.305109$Mn5.201401@pd7tw3no>

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

>>>>> While that's sometimes necessary, the batch processes I referred to 
>>>>> did not all do that. They just grouped multiple logical units of 
>>>>> work together before issuing a commit. Serializing was handled by 
>>>>> the normal concurrency features and isolation level.
>>>>> ...

>
> In that case, you are talking about serialization and not recognizing it.
>
> p
>
>

(To clarify, if the so-called luw's could have been run in parallel with an acceptable result, the issue of concurrency is moot. I think luw is synonomous with transaction in Gray's sense, even though I know some programmers think program trumps transaction. But then I think programmers are servants, not arbiters.)

p Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 19:16:54 CDT