Re: Is relational theory irrelevant?

"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message <news:bpe6mq$1n9m$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...

> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:ToednURmpdK7Dyei4p2dnA_at_golden.net...
> > > Interesting. I didn't intend to allege that side-effects are bad. They
> > > are a reminder that SQL has to deal with the real world.
> >
> > Side-effects are bad. I suggest your example was also bad. Sending emails
> is
> > not data management. Recording the emails sent is data management. A
> > database management system has a role and a function. Sending emails is
> not
> > its function.
>
> No, but if you want to get rid of logical transactions, then sending emails
> is and example of an activity that needs to hook into the physical layer of
> the database, which would have the consequence of users of the logical
> database experiencing that the DBMS does indeed send emails. :-)

What then can be safely kept /out/ of the DBMS?

If a consequence of disallowing logical transactions is that the DBMS must needs therefore also be the everything server, perhaps logical transactions aren't the problem, and the DBMS should be allowed more leeway in rejecting a commit. Logical transaction timeouts? Declarative integrity rules applying to transactions as a whole?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!