Comments on “Process synchronizaiton in databases systems”
ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)
The correctness of concurrency control mechanisms in a system for distributed databases (SDD-1)
ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)
Process synchronization in database systems
ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)
The serializability of concurrent database updates
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Consistency in Hierarchical Database Systems
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system
Communications of the ACM
Consistency, concurrency, and crash recovery
SIGMOD '78 Proceedings of the 1978 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data
Principles of Database Systems
Principles of Database Systems
SIGMOD '81 Proceedings of the 1981 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data
Cautious Transaction Schedulers for Database Concurrency Control
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Multiversion Cautious Schedulers for Database Concurrency Control
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Serializability with constraints
ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)
A theorem in database concurrency control
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Maximal concurrency by locking
PODS '84 Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems
Pre-analysis locking: a safe and deadlock free locking policy
VLDB '85 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Very Large Data Bases - Volume 11
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Our aim in this paper is to show that there is a mathematically inherent reason why existing systems enforce D-serializability (rather than just because of its simplicity): it is because they are based on locking. Our main result is a characterization of the power of locking which states that if a locking policy is safe then it must allow only D-serializable schedules. Furthermore any such schedule can be produced by some safe locking policy. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we formalize our concepts and describe the model. In Section 3 we characterize D-serializability in semantic terms. In Section 4 we examine when a set of transactions can be let to run safely by themselves without locking or any intervention from the scheduler. Section 5 is concerned with locking policies and in Section 6 we discuss some implications of our results.