>-----Original Message----- >From: Martijn Tonies [mailto:m.ton...@upscene.com] >Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:40 PM >To: mysql@lists.mysql.com >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. :<)
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
