Re: computational model of transactions

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:50:33 GMT
Message-ID: <tFSzg.302693$iF6.252452@pd7tw2no>

paul c wrote:
> 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. ...

To try to clarify even more, even if nobody wants to hear it, all program 'artifacts', eg. so-called buffers, ought to be eradicated when a transaction ends, in Gray's terms, when locks are released. In other words, all transaction memory.

p Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 19:50:33 CDT