Advertisement

Towards a Proof Framework for Information Systems with Weak Consistency

  • Peter Zeller
  • Arnd Poetzsch-Heffter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9763)

Abstract

Weakly consistent data stores are more scalable and can provide a higher availability than classical, strongly consistent data stores. However, it is much harder to reason about and to implement applications, when the underlying infrastructure provides only few guarantees. In this paper, we report on work in progress on a proof framework, which can be used to formally reason about the correctness of such applications. The framework supports the verification of functional properties, which go beyond the guarantees given by the data store and can cover relations between multiple interactions with clients and invariants between several objects. Additionally, we modeled and support modern database features, like causal consistency, snapshot-transactions, and conflict-free replicated data types (CRDTs). The framework and the proofs are developed within the interactive theorem prover Isabelle/HOL.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint Strong Consistency Database Operation Proof Rule Informal Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research is supported in part by European FP7 project 609 551 SyncFree https://syncfree.lip6.fr/ (2013–2016).

References

  1. 1.
    Ashcroft, E.A.: Proving assertions about parallel programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 10(1), 110–135 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodik, R., Majumdar, R. (eds.): Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 20–22 January 2016. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouajjani, A., Enea, C., Hamza, J.: Verifying eventual consistency of optimistic replication systems. In: Jagannathan and Sewell [10], pp. 285–296Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burckhardt, S., Gotsman, A., Yang, H.: Understanding eventual consistency. Technical report MSR-TR-2013-39, this document is work in progress. Feel free to cite, but note that we will update the contents without warning (the first page contains a timestamp), and that we are likely going to publish the content in some future venue, at which point we will update this paragraph, March 2013Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burckhardt, S., Gotsman, A., Yang, H., Zawirski, M.: Replicated data types: specification, verification, optimality. In: Jagannathan and Sewell [10], pp. 271–284Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.A.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gotsman, A., Yang, H.: Composite replicated data types. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) ESOP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9032, pp. 585–609. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gotsman, A., Yang, H., Ferreira, C., Najafzadeh, M., Shapiro, M.: ‘Cause I’m strong enough: reasoning about consistency choices in distributed systems. In: Bodik and Majumdar [2], pp. 371–384Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions - Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jagannathan, S., Sewell, P. (eds.) The 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2014, San Diego, CA, USA, 20–21 January 2014. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems, The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lesani, M., Bell, C.J., Chlipala, A.: Chapar: certified causally consistent distributed key-value stores. In: Bodik and Majumdar [2], pp. 357–370Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M. (eds.): Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shapiro, M., Preguiça, N., Baquero, C., Zawirski, M.: A comprehensive study of convergent and commutative replicated data types. Rapport de recherche RR-7506, INRIA, January 2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zeller, P., Bieniusa, A., Poetzsch-Heffter, A.: Formal specification and verification of CRDTs. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations