From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory
Nicola
On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 19:29:04 UTC+10, Nicola wrote:
On 2021-08-15, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:
Are there any facts, in my Transaction Sanity doc, p1 and p2, that you dispute ?
How could I dispute facts?
Good to hear.
Thank you for that document, and for the whole discussion around ACID
and transactions.
You are welcome.
It has made me understand how you use those terms (as
opposed to their "textbook" use),
As you can see, I do not have private terms or re-definitions of terms, I use the definitions that have been established in the industry, in chronological order (SQL, genuine SQL Platforms of forty years). I trust you appreciate that technical terms are established in order to facilitate correct communication between people. When the academics use terms to mean different things than the established terms:
a. it is an act of dishonesty,
b. it guarantees that the communication will be laboured and confused (which is a substantial component in the volume of our discussion)
c. it is the base they use to promote some primitive and non-compliant feature as the feature (eg. anti-SQL as rCLSQLrCY; anti-ACID as rCLACIDrCY; etc)
d. their students are trained in such falsity, which breaks down when they are employed in industry
which in turn, has helped me clarify
many aspects of your critique of MVCC.
Great.
Perhaps some day, you too, will admit the utter falsity of MV-non-CC, the fantasy, and thus the insanity of perceiving an online shared active database as something, anything, that it is not, let alone a snapshot frozen in time, which is impossible. And the terrible consequences thereof.
I'll gladly follow your developments on Dan's data model, if there are
any,
Assuming you mean the data model relevant to this thread, the goal being Optimistic Locking, and showing the progress of the OLTP Transaction Template code, the GitHub Gist is here. This contains the DDL and obsolete stored proc code:
__
https://gist.github.com/DanielLoth/76d241515655e76cadddef6ed2d373aa
My submission, the latest version of code against that db, is here. It is now generic code for SQL-compliant Platforms (Sybase; DB2; MS; and Informix):
__
https://www.softwaregems.com.au/Documents/Article/Database/Transaction/Visit_Add_tr%20DA.sql
Because it is for DanrCOs db, it does have some nuances: if it is at all confusing, ie. you donrCOt clearly see the difference re Template vs nuances, let me know and I will post code for the db in the Transaction Sanity doc.
If you mean the data modelling exercise for the Shooter db, please post to that effect. I donrCOt know how far Dan is interested in taking it. That is in another GithHub rCLPull RequestrCY.
and think how they (fail to) apply to MVCC-based systems.
After having reached the status that you have, per your post, it would be interesting if you comment on that. The MV-non-CC plus the manual locking (you said rCLI love 2PLrCY) that you have to do vs the Lock Managers in real SQL platforms, that wouldnrCOt dream of allowing the user to interfere with locks.
Cheers
Derek
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2