Whose effect is precisely to undermine isolation
Is the relative clause a defining relative clause or non-defining?
So the isolation property too is really more of a desideratum than an ironclad guarantee: What is more, real-world systems typically provide explicit mechanisms namely, isolation levels lower than the maximum--whose effect is precisely to undermine isolation.
Introduction to Database Systems, J. Date
Top answer
First, please tell us which word you see this clause as relative to. Clive
- First, please tell us which word you see this clause as relative to.
- Clive
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
First, please tell us which word you see this clause as relative to.
Clive
0I agree.
Now if we say "What is more, real-world systems typically provide explicit mechanisms whose effect is precisely to undermine isolation", are there other explicit mechanisms that have other effects?
Clive
0I really don't know whether or not there are other explicit mechanisms that have other effects.
no other explicit mechanisms Then it is not a defining clause.
other explicit mechanisms Then it is a defining clause
In my opinion, it's a poorly written sentence because the dash just tacks on what follows as an after-thought and leaves the r
0
Related Questions