Advertisement

The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 193–202 | Cite as

On Concurrency Control in Multidatabase Systems with an Extended Transaction Model

  • Kamel Barkaoui
  • Rabah Benamara
Article

Abstract

A major concurrency control problem that we have to cope in multidatabase systems is the global deadlock detection and resolution problem. This detection must take into account the autonomy of local systems, which make impossible the visibility of the state of local transactions. A well-known approach to detect such deadlocks, called potential global deadlocks, is one based on the potential conflict graph (PCG) appropriate for the multidatabase transaction model with a global commit protocol. This classical transaction model is very constraining for applications manipulating great volumes of information, and where subtransaction terminations (commit or abort) of global transactions are not totally dependant. In this paper we present an effective potential global deadlock characterization, and an efficient potential global deadlock detection algorithm, in multidatabase systems with an extended transaction model more suited for such applications.

multidatabase systems global deadlock extended transaction model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Baldoni and S Salzao. Deadlock detection in multidatabase systems: a performance analysis. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal, 4(4), 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Barghouti and G. Kaiser. Concurrency control in advanced database applications. ACM Computing Survey, 23(3):269–317, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Barkaoui and M. Minoux. Deadlocks and traps in petri nets as horn-satisfiability. Solutions and some related polynomially solvable problems. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 29(4), 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Bertino, G. Chiola, and L. V. Mancini. Deadlock Detection in the Face of Transaction and Data Dependencies in Advanced Transaction Models, 19th Int. Conf. on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, Lisbon, Portugal, LNCS, Springer, Verlag, June 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. Breitbart, W. Litwin, et A. Silberschatz. Deadlock problems in multidatabase environment: In Proc. of the IEEE COMPCON, IEEE CS Press, pp. 145–151, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Chrysanthis and K. Ramamritham, ACTA: a framework for specifying and reasoning about transaction structure behavior. In Readings in Database Systems, 2nd ed., Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 335–344, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. K. Elmagarmid and W. Du. A paradigm for concurrency control in heterogeneous distributed database systems. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 37–46, Los Angeles, CA, February 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Garcia-Molina and K. Salem. Saga. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Management on Data (SIGMOD'87), pp. 249–259, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Hermann and K. Chandy. A Distributed procedure to detect AND-OR deadlock. TR LCS-8301. Dept. of Computer Science, Technical report University of Texas, Austin, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Jajodia and L. Kerchsberg, editors, Advanced Transaction Model and Architectures. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Mancini, I. Ray, E. Bertino, and S. Jajodia, Flexible commit protocols for advanced transaction processing. In Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, S. Jajodia and L. Kerschberg, eds., pp. 91–124, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kamel Barkaoui
    • 1
  • Rabah Benamara
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire CEDRIC-CNAMParis, Cedex 03France

Personalised recommendations