List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:US Data Export Date:February 13 2009 10:03pm
Subject:RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
View as plain text  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martijn Tonies [mailto:m.tonies@stripped]
>Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:40 PM
>To: mysql@stripped
>Subject: Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
>
>Hi Jerry,
>
>>>>*Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical
>storage
>>>or
>>>>access ethods change.*
>>>
>>>Changing the storage engine for tables, for example from a
>transactional
>>>to non-transactional engine, changes the database logic.
>>>
>> [JS] Is that really an example of Codd's rule #8? It is a higher-level
>> change than simply going from a hard drive to a RAM drive to magnetic
>> tape,
>> any of which could conceivably be used with any of the storage
>engines.
>
>I think you're right, but a "non transactional storage engine" fails on
>a higher rule: namely the atomicy rule.
>
>A non transactional engine is of near no use.
>
[JS] That's why I like magnetic tape, it's so easy to rewind. :<)



Thread
Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Yusuf Khan13 Feb
  • Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Peter Brawley13 Feb
    • RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Jerry Schwartz13 Feb
  • Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Martijn Tonies13 Feb
    • Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Baron Schwartz13 Feb
    • RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)US Data Export13 Feb