Re: computational model of transactions

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:57:03 GMT
Message-ID: <PDTzg.32009$pu3.428175@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

paul c wrote:

> 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.

That seemed to come out of left field, and I am having trouble identifying the relevance or the point. Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 20:57:03 CDT