From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] PQ - a Plan 9 way of relational database?
From: okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010220020705.BDE9C199E1@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:06:27 +0900
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 679a3fe2-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>Why not? Transactions. E-commerce.
>Multi-user. SQL. Triggers. Mine is/has none of those. I learned a lot

I suppose PQ (Phone Query?) would be designed mainly for read only
database.  Many usages of RDBMS may actually be this like.  :-)
However, yes, we should have the concept of transaction if we apply
this to multiple users who can update at anytime.
SQL and triggering are not so essential, but considered as cosmetics for
more user friendly RDBMS.

 From the naming, I suppose supported data types are limitted only to
string type.  However, adding more data types and more operations
other than '=' could be not so difficult.

As a conclusion, PQ should have concept of transaction first.
Am I wrong?

Kenji