Marcus G. Daniels
12 May 1997 02:20:19 -0700
>>>>> "BS" == BRIAN SPILSBURY <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
BS> We lose our measure of atomicity and imho that's
BS> the point of a transactional bd.
Sorry for murdering the language here, what I want is something that has
My point is that it could be possible to preserve the stack, etc. by
going fuzzy on granularity. Also, I have a tendency to think in terms of
the likely nuts of bolts of the thing; if it is coded throughout as
transactions, then there's the option of having a mode where there is
BS> If you look at the solution I'm
BS> proposing its not hugely different from your example up there,
BS> except that its a more genearl case, and doesn't try to call page
BS> flushes transactions, it reserves that for world-global
What is world-global synchronization and how does it occur?
Alternatively, how does one deal with disjointness in data?