Advertisement

An execution model for distributed database transactions and its implementation in VPL

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 580)

Abstract

We present an execution model for distributed transactions that can be employed for multidatabase systems. We use the Flex Transaction model that has been proposed as a highly general and flexible tool for the specification of distributed transactions and extend it by allowing nested and possibly recursive transaction specifications. We show how a given transaction specification and its execution model can be mapped into a representation in a new concurrent Prolog language, the VPL (Vienna Parallel Logic) language. The representation in VPL can be considered as an executable specification. We show some optimizations concerning this mapping and define a significant subclass of Flex Transactions with a declarative representation in VPL that can be modeled by AND/OR structures. We argue that it is more advantageous to use VPL directly for the transaction specification because it provides more flexibility and more control aspects than the Flex Transaction model.

Keywords

Communication Variable Acceptable State Execution Model Execution State Parallel Logic 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Ph. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems, Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. K. Elmagarmid, Y. Leu, W. Litwin, and M. Rusinkiewicz, “A Multidatabase Transaction Model for InterBase”, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Australia, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Garcia-Molina and K. Salem, “Sagas”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Annual Conference, San Francisco, May 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Gray, “The Transaction Concepts: Virtues and Limitations”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    e. Kühn and F. Puntigam, “Programmed Backtracking and Concurrency in Logic Programming”, technical report TR-1851-91-4, University of Technology Vienna, Dep. of Computer Languages, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    e. Kühn, F. Puntigam, and A. K. Elmagarmid, “Transaction Specification in Multidatabase Systems based on Parallel Logic Programming”, First International Workshop on Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems, Kyoto, April 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Witold Litwin, Leo Mark, and Nick Roussopoulos, “Interoperability of Multiple Autonomous Databases”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Y. Leu, “Composing Multidatabase Applications using Flex Transactions”, IEEE DE Bulletin, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E. Shapiro, “The Family of Concurrent Logic Programming Languages”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 21, No. 3, September 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer LanguagesUniversity of Technology ViennaViennaAustria, Europe
  2. 2.Indiana Center for Database Systems Department of Computer SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options