Talk:Atomicity (database systems)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Databases / Computer science  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Systems (Rated Disambig-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

22 December 2006[edit]

The interface between database and programming environment may reintroduce problems that a programmer might naively expect atomic transactions to do away with. For instance, if an operation fails in a transaction, it is often the programmer's responsibility to detect that failure and manually roll back the transaction before retrying. Not doing so will result in a partially-completed transaction!

This was removed by DanPope. I think this text is an important point, but I'm not going to re-add it without support. (I put it there in the first place.) Is there a good place to put it in the article? Somewhere else to put it? --Chris Purcell 12:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting that this page be moved/renamed to "Atomicity (database systems)". The pages for the related concepts of "durability", "consistency", and "isolation" are all named in this format currently. The move/rename request is to maintain consistency with the other related pages. SqlPac (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless there are any other atomicity articles. If not there is no need to disambiguate. Horsesforcorses (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. But not for the consistency argument given. (To my knowledge, consistency with other articles is not grounds for a name change; this ought to be clarified in the guidelines.) The page should be moved because there are other meanings for the word "atomicity", and it is not at all clear that this one is primary. Sam Staton (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Horsesforcorses. Invalid rationale for an article move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed unsubstantiated statement that did not seem to be relevant in context[edit]

I removed the statement: "This is the main advantage of database over the file system" mainly because it appeared in an example of atomicity. Even if it is entirely true, it belongs in an area where the relative merits of the two items are being presented, not as part of a nuetral definition of atomicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshbaked (talkcontribs) 18:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Imprecise statement?[edit]

As a consequence, the transaction cannot be observed to be in progress by another database client. At one moment in time, it has not yet happened, and at the next it has already occurred in whole (or nothing happened if the transaction was cancelled in progress).

Is this correct? This statement seems to imply at least isolation as well (first part of the explanation is correct). It is also stronger than what is described in the ACID article.

Atomicity just seems to imply that I can observe partial transactions, but any partial transaction I observe will not be aborted.

--2001:67C:10EC:52C7:8000:0:0:1AE (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)