A unified approach to concurrency control and transaction recovery

Extended abstract
  • Gustavo Alonso
  • Radek Vingralek
  • Divyakant Agrawal
  • Yuri Breitbart
  • Amr El Abbadi
  • Hans Schek
  • Gerhard Weikum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 779)

Abstract

In this paper, we have addressed an open problem posed by [SWY93]: how to characterize the class of histories PRED in a constructive way so that unified scheduling protocols can be derived from it. We have slightly modified the original definitions of expanded histories and PRED to account for certain executions, and we have provided an equivalent class, SOT, with a more constructive definition. This new class is used as the basis for several protocols that implement unified concurrency control and recovery in an efficient manner.

So far, our model is restricted to read and write operations. However, both the model and the developed protocols can be generalized to transactions with semantically rich operations where recovery is based on compensating operations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AE90]
    D. Agrawal and A. El Abbadi. Locks with Constrained Sharing. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 85–93, April 1990. To appear in Journal of Computer and System Sciences.Google Scholar
  2. [AAE93]
    G. Alonso, D. Agrawal, A. El Abbadi. A Unified Implementation of Concurrency Control and Recovery. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of California at Santa Barbara, TRCS93-19, October 1993Google Scholar
  3. [AVA+94]
    G. Alonso, R. Vingralek, D. Agrawal, Y. Breitbart, A. El Abbadi, H. Schek, and G. Weikum. Unifying concurrency control and recovery of transactions. Information Systems, 1994. to appear in the special EDBT'94 issue.Google Scholar
  4. [BBG89]
    C. Beeri, P. A. Bernstein, and N. Goodman. A Model for Concurrency in Nested Transactions Systems. Journal of the ACM, 36(2):230–269, April 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [BGRS91]
    Y. Breitbart, D. Georgakopoulos, M. Rusinkiewisz, and A. Silberschatz. On rigorous transaction scheduling. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 17(9), 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [BHG87]
    P. A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [BSW79]
    P. A. Bernstein, D. W. Shipman, and W. S. Wong. Formal Aspects of Serializability in Database Concurrency Control. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 5(5):203–216, May 1979.Google Scholar
  8. [GR93]
    J. Gray and A. Reuter. Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [HR83]
    T. Härder and A. Reuter. Principles of Transaction-Oriented Database Recovery. ACM Computing Surveys, 15(4):287–317, December 1983.Google Scholar
  10. [SWY93]
    H. J. Schek, G. Weikum, and H. Ye. Towards a Unified Theory of Concurrency Control and Recovery. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 300–311, June 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [VBSW93]
    R. Vingralek, Y. Breitbart, H.-J. Schek, G. Weikum. Concurrency Control Protocols Guaranteeing Atomicity and Serializability. Technical Report 199, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, July 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustavo Alonso
    • 1
  • Radek Vingralek
    • 2
  • Divyakant Agrawal
    • 1
  • Yuri Breitbart
    • 2
  • Amr El Abbadi
    • 1
  • Hans Schek
    • 3
  • Gerhard Weikum
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KentuckyLexington
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations