The demarcation protocol: A technique for maintaining linear arithmetic constraints in distributed database systems

  • Daniel Barbard
  • Hector Garcia-Molina
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 580)


Traditional protocols for distributed database management have high message overhead, lock or restrain access to resources during protocol execution, and may become impractical for some scenarios like real-time systems and very large distributed databases. In this paper we present the demarcation protocol; it overcomes these problems through the use of explicit linear arithmetic consistency constraints as the correctness criteria. The method establishes safe limits as “lines drawn in the sand” for updates and gives a way of changing these limits dynamically, enforcing the constraints at all times.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [ABG90]
    R. Alonso, D. Barbará, and H. Garcia-Molina, “Data Caching Issues in an Information Retrieval System,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [CR82]
    O.S.F. Carvalho and G. Roucariol, “On the Distribution of an Assertion,” Proceedings of the ACM-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. Ottawa, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. [DAT83]
    C.J. Date, “An Introduction to Database Systems,” Volume 2, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. [DAV82]
    S. B. Davidson, “An Optimistic Protocol for Partitioned Distributed Database Systems,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University. October 1982.Google Scholar
  5. [DE89]
    W. Du, and A. Elmagarmid, “Quasi-Serializability: A Correctness Criterion for Global Concurrency Control in InterBase,” Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Amsterdam, Aug. 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [FGL82]
    J.M. Fischer, N.D. Griffeth, and N.A. Lynch, “Global States of a Distributed System,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-8, 3. May 1982.Google Scholar
  7. [FZ89]
    M. F. Fernández and S. B. Zdonik, “Transaction Groups: A Model for Controlling Cooperative Work,” Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Persistent Object Systems. Queensland, Australia, January 1989.Google Scholar
  8. [GAR83]
    H. Garcia-Molina, “Using Semantic Knowledge for Transaction Processing in a Distributed Database,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol.8, No. 2, June 1983.Google Scholar
  9. [HS80]
    M.M. Hammer and D. W. Shipman, “The Reliability Mechanisms of SDD-1: A system for Distributed Databases,” Computer Corporation of America Technical Report CCA-80-04, January 1980.Google Scholar
  10. [KS88]
    H. F. Korth, and G.D. Speegle, “Formal Model of Correctness Without Serializability,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Chicago, June 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [KuS88]
    A. Kumar, and M. Stonebraker, “Semantics Based Transaction Management Techniques for Replicated Data,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD 1988 International Conference on Management of Data, Chicago, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [LBS86]
    N.A. Lynch, B. Blaustein, and M. Siegel, “Correctness Conditions for Highly Available Replicated Data,” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Systems, Calgary, August 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [ONE86]
    P. O'Neil, “The Escrow Transactional Method,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1986.Google Scholar
  14. [SS90]
    N. Soparkar, A. Silberschatz, “Data-Value Partitioning and Virtual Messages,” Proceedings of the Conference on Principles of Database Systems, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Barbard
    • 1
  • Hector Garcia-Molina
    • 2
  1. 1.Matsushita Information Technology LaboratoryPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations