BRIAN SPILSBURY zhivago@iglou.com
Sun, 11 May 1997 06:31:03 -0400 (EDT)

MD> BS> This basically means _everything_. Now I don't know about you, but
MD> BS> transactional updates on my stack are likely to be at least
MD> BS> several orders of magnitude slower
MD> Suppose you do _everything_, can't these tiny commits of the stack
MD> just be roundoffs to set a bits in a dirty vector?  Then after N of
MD> those things commit all the dirty pages?

I don't think so if you're dealing with a transactional synch'd database.

MD> Uh, sorry for being dense.  Where does the disjointedness sneak in?
MD> If it sneaks in at all, that sounds to me like that is pretty much
MD> hopeless lossage (I guess I don't understand what you mean by disjointedness).

What I mean is when one application's view of part of the world is out
of step with another's. 

Its possibly caused by the dissussions about 'applications', which seemed
to indicate that different programs would dump state into a transactional
db at certain points.

If you're happy to take the overhead of all persistent data going though
a transactional databae and being written to the physical media on
a change, then there won't be any disjointedness, but that's a fairly
large hit.

I have a feeling that terminology is exacting a toll here, I suspect
that much disagreement will be over misunderstanding, as opposed to
denseness :)