Re: Newbie question about db normalization theory: redundant keys OK?
From: David Cressey <cressey73_at_verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:05:56 GMT
Message-ID: <U8Obj.4648$Pt6.3812_at_trndny07>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:05:56 GMT
Message-ID: <U8Obj.4648$Pt6.3812_at_trndny07>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac> wrote in message news:_wFbj.8986$DP1.987_at_pd7urf2no...
> My attitude about concurrency is likely much simpler in principle, if
> not in practice. Basically, an "ideal" rdbms would ignore concurrency!
> All a "transaction" can "know" is its data, aka the hand it's been
> dealt and this is sufficient to eliminate what some other transactions
> might be occupied with. If it regurgitates the queries the designer
> decides are pertinent to the transaction, at the "time" of update, along
> with the expected query results, and those match, then the rdbms could
> apply the transaction's expected updates, in perfect safety.