Re: "Transactions are bad, real bad" - discuss
From: Paul Vernon <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 17:24:44 +0100
Message-ID: <b9gks7$3ki0$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 17:24:44 +0100
Message-ID: <b9gks7$3ki0$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:4cPua.788670$L1.222709_at_sccrnsc02...
> "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:b9fvd8$19ru$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> > [...]
>
> Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.
>
>
> > Transactions that are atomic in time are just not transactions at all in
any
> > meaningful sense
>
>
> Do you have an alternate name for them? (Admittedly a less important
> question.) "Whole-DBvar updates?"
<Shrug>
Take your pick:
Nested Updates
Intstant Transactions
dbvar update
Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services
Received on Fri May 09 2003 - 18:24:44 CEST