Re: Towards a definition of atomic
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:54:18 -0400
Message-ID: <47a5e3ad$0$4042$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:54:18 -0400
Message-ID: <47a5e3ad$0$4042$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Jan Hidders wrote:
> On 2 feb, 02:45, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 2, 3:42 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On 1 feb, 14:30, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
[snip]
> Apologies if I'm kicking in an open door here. It's just to offset a
> few remarks about atomicity not being relevant in the context of the
> relational model. IMO such remarks show a deep misunderstanding of
> what the relational model is essentially about.
I must have missed that, which I suppose is a risk when one filters twits as easily as I do.
What remarks suggested atomicity is not relevant in the context of the RM? Received on Sun Feb 03 2008 - 16:54:18 CET