Federated Transaction Management with Snapshot Isolation

  • Ralf Schenkel
  • Gerhard Weikum
  • Norbert Weißenberg
  • Xuequn Wu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1773)

Abstract

Federated transaction management (also known as multidatabase transaction management in the literature) is needed to ensure the consistency of data that is distributed across multiple, largely autonomous, and possibly heterogeneous component databases and accessed by both global and local transactions. While the global atomicity of such transactions can be enforced by using a standardized commit protocol like XA or its CORBA counterpart OTS, global serializability is not self-guaranteed as the underlying component systems may use a variety of potentially incompatible local concurrency control protocols. The problem of how to achieve global serializability, by either constraining the component systems or implementing additional global protocols at the federation level, has been intensively studied in the literature, but did not have much impact on the practical side. A major deficiency of the prior work has been that it focused on the idealized correctness criterion of serializability and disregarded the subtle but important variations of SQL isolation levels supported by most commercial database systems.

This paper reconsiders the problem of federated transaction management, more specifically its concurrency control issues, with particular focus on isolation levels used in practice, especially the popular snapshot isolation provided by Oracle. As pointed out in a SIGMOD 1995 paper by Berenson et al., a rigorous foundation for reasoning about such concurrency control features of commercial systems is sorely missing. The current paper aims to close this gap by developing a formal framework that allows us to reason about local and global transaction executions where some (or all) transactions are running under snapshot isolation. The paper derives criteria and practical protocols for guaranteeing global snapshot isolation at the federation level. It further generalizes the well-known ticket method to cope with combinations of isolation levels in a federated system.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. Atluri, E. Bertino, and S. Jajodia. A Theoretical Formulation for Degrees of Isolation in Databases. Information and Software Technology, 39(1):47–53, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Berenson, P. Bernstein, J. Gray, J. Melton, E. O’Neil, and P. O’Neil. A Critique of ANSI SQL Isolation Levels. In M. J. Carey and D. A. Schneider, editors, Proc. of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, San Jose, CA, ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 24, No. 2, pages 1–10, ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Breitbart, H. Garcia-Molina, and A. Silberschatz. Overview of Multidatabase Transaction Management. The VLDB Journal, 1(2):181–240, October 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. Breitbart, H. Garcia-Molina, and A. Silberschatz. Transaction Management in Multidatabase Systems. In W. Kim, editor, Modern Database Systems, chapter 28, pages 573–591, ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Breitbart, D. Georgakopoulos, M. Rusinkiewicz, and A. Silberschatz. On Rigorous Transaction Scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(9):954–960, September 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Breitbart and A. Silberschatz. Strong Recoverbility in Multidatabase Systems. In P. S. Yu, editor, RIDE’92, Proc. of the 2nd Int. Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering: Transaction and Query Processing, Tempe, Arizona, USA, February 2–3, 1992, pages 170–175. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Bright, A. Hurson, and S. Pakzad, editors. Multidatabase Systems: An Advanced Solution for Global Information Sharing. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. A. Bukhres and A. K. Elmagarmid, editors. Object-Oriented Multidatabase Systems — A Solution for Advanced Applications. Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Conrad. Federated Database Systems: Concepts of Data Integration. Springer-Verlag, 1997. (In German).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Georgakopoulos, M. Rusinkiewicz, and A. Sheth. Using Tickets to Enforce the Serializability of Multidatabase Transactions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6(1):166–180, February 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Holtkamp, N. Weißenberg, and X. Wu. VHDBS: A Federated Database System for Electronic Commerce. In Summary Proc. of the EURO-MED NET’ 98 Conf., Nicosia, Cyprus, March 4–7, 1998, pages 182–189, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Litwin, L. Mark, and N. Roussopoulos. Interoperability of Multiple Autonomous Databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3):267–293, September 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group, Inc. Object Transaction Service Specification 1.1, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oracle Corporation. Concurrency Control, Transaction Isolation and Serializability in SQL92 and Oracle7. White Paper, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oracle Corporation. Oracle8 Concepts, Release 8.0: Chapter 23, Data Concurrency and Consistency, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. T. Özsu and P. Valduriez. Principles of Distributed Database Systems. Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Papadimitriou. The Theory of Database Concurrency Control. Computer Science Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Raz. The Principle of Commitment Ordering, or Guaranteeing Serializability in a Heterogeneous Environment of Multiple Autonomous Resource Managers Using Atomic Commitment. In L.-Y. Yuan, editor, Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB’92, Vancouver, Canada, August 23–27, 1992, pages 292–312. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Schenkel and G. Weikum. Experiences with Building a Federated Transaction Manager based on CORBA OTS. In S. Conrad, W. Hasselbring, and G. Saake, editors, Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Engineering Federated Information Systems, EFIS’99, Kühlungsborn, Germany, May 5–7, 1999, pages 79–94. infix-Verlag, Sankt Augustin, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. P. Sheth and J. A. Larson. Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3):183–236, September 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. E. Weihl. Local Atomicity Properties: Modular Concurrency Control for Abstract Data Types. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 11(2):249–283, April 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    X. Wu. An Architecture for Interoperation of Distributed Heterogenous Database Systems Database System. In R. R. Wagner and H. Thoma, editors, Database and Expert System Applications, Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf., DEXA’96, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1134, pages 688–697. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    X. Wu and N. Weißenberg. A Graphical Interface for Cooperative Access to Distributed and Heterogeneous Database Systems. In IDEAS’97, Proc. of the Int. Database Engineering and Applications Symposium, Montreal, Canada, August 25–27, 1997, pages 13–22, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Schenkel
    • 1
  • Gerhard Weikum
    • 1
  • Norbert Weißenberg
    • 2
  • Xuequn Wu
    • 3
  1. 1.University of the SaarlandGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer ISSTGermany
  3. 3.Deutsche Telekom AGGermany

Personalised recommendations