nother may be triggered by ecutio of a trigger. a imit on how deep nesting may go in database systems. Why could they impose such a restriction?

Consider the term "snapshot isolation" as an example for a database used by an airline. Is the selection of a strategy that does not lend itself to serialization suitable in the event that airlines are able to improve their overall performance?

In a database for an airline, "snapshot isolation" should be considered. Is a strategy that does not permit serialization a realistic alternative if airlines can enhance their overall performance?

What are the effects of an attack on a database's referential integrity? What kinds of mistakes could happen?

Consider the following scenario: there is only room for one student in the class that two students are trying to enroll in. What aspect of the database system makes it impossible for both students to claim the last open seat?

Can you define a database's stable state? The symbolic significance of the transaction may differ from its actual occurrence in the database management system. To what extent would a prohibition be felt? Give an instance to illustrate your point. Is there really anything to "serializable transactions"?

In the event that database referential integrity is not enforced, what would happen? What are the most likely blunders to make?

Take a "snapshot isolation" as an example for a database used by an airline. Is the decision to go with a method that cannot be serialized justified in the event that airlines manage to improve their overall performance?

Imagine for a minute that a financial institution's database is being safeguarded by the snapshot isolation database technique.Do you offer a concrete example of how a nonserializable execution may be detrimental to a bank? If so, please distribute it.

When it comes to locking at several levels of granularity, what precisely differentiates implicit locking from explicit locking?