Re: The C in ACID
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:25:12 GMT
Message-ID: <cWtGg.448706$IK3.280832_at_pd7tw1no>
paul c wrote:
> vc wrote:
>> Paul Mansour wrote: >>> paul c wrote: >> ... >> If the Microsoft researchers had read more carefully any concurrency >> control textbook, for example a book written by another MS researcher >> Phil Bernstein, they would probably have not caused as much confusion. >> ...
>
> Right, correctness always has a context, eg. politically correct. Up in
> the Yukon, where men are men and so are the women, the db that says "my
> father says your mother wears army boots" is generally correct. Down
> south, it's not PC even if it is in fact correct as far as the db is
> concerned. It can be correct even if your mother doesn't wear army boots.
It just occurred to me that when I said "Right", I might have given the impression that I was disparaging David Lomet and the other authors, which I certainly didn't mean. Actually, I just took a quick look at the paper and couldn't quite figure out where the confusion comes from.
(I'm not taking back my comment about context though, just any suggestion about these authors and their paper.)
I've enjoyed reading some of Lomet's papers, he certainly knows more about his areas than I do and writes about them well. It's just that I sometimes think there is more general competence in the concurrency field compared to logical db theory and the former ends up getting more credit/weight/emphasis in practice, which I think is too bad, a shame really because we should exhaust the logical db possibilities before we start relying on physical techniques.
p Received on Tue Aug 22 2006 - 04:25:12 CEST