In databases and transaction processing, two-phase locking (2PL) is a pessimistic concurrency control method that guarantees conflict-serializability. [1] [2] It is also the name of the resulting set of database transaction schedules (histories). The protocol uses locks, applied by a transaction to data, which may block (interpreted as signals to stop) other transactions from accessing the same data during the transaction's life.
By the 2PL protocol, locks are applied and removed in two phases:
Two types of locks are used by the basic protocol: Shared and Exclusive locks. Refinements of the basic protocol may use more lock types. Using locks that block processes, 2PL, S2PL, and SS2PL may be subject to deadlocks that result from the mutual blocking of two or more transactions.
Locks are used to guarantee serializability. A transaction is holding a lock on an object if that transaction has acquired a lock on that object which has not yet been released.
For 2PL, the only used data-access locks are read-locks (shared locks) and write-locks (exclusive locks). Below are the rules for read-locks and write-locks:
Lock type | read-lock | write-lock |
---|---|---|
read-lock | ✔ | X |
write-lock | X | X |
guarantees conflict-serializability | guarantees view-serializability | eliminates deadlocks | guarantees recoverability | guarantees strictness | prevents phantom reads | prevents dirty reads | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2PL | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
C2PL | Yes | Yes[ citation needed ] | Yes | yes?[ citation needed ] | yes?[ citation needed ] | No[ citation needed ] | Yes[ citation needed ] |
S2PL | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
SS2PL | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
According to the two-phase locking protocol, each transaction handles its locks in two distinct, consecutive phases during the transaction's execution:
The two phase locking rules can be summarized as: each transaction must never acquire a lock after it has released a lock. The serializability property is guaranteed for a schedule with transactions that obey this rule.
Typically, without explicit knowledge in a transaction on end of phase 1, the rule is safely determined only when a transaction has completed processing and requested commit. In this case, all the locks can be released at once (phase 2).
Conservative two-phase locking (C2PL) differs from 2PL in that transactions obtain all the locks they need before the transactions begin. This is to ensure that a transaction that already holds some locks will not block waiting for other locks. C2PL prevents deadlocks.
In cases of heavy lock contention, C2PL reduces the time locks are held on average, relative to 2PL and Strict 2PL, because transactions that hold locks are never blocked. In light lock contention, C2PL holds more locks than is necessary, because it is difficult to predict which locks will be needed in the future, thus leading to higher overhead.
A C2PL transaction will not obtain any locks if it cannot obtain all the locks it needs in its initial request. Furthermore, each transaction needs to declare its read and write set (the data items that will be read/written), which is not always possible. Because of these limitations, C2PL is not used very frequently.
To comply with the strict two-phase locking (S2PL) protocol, a transaction needs to comply with 2PL, and release its write (exclusive) locks only after the transaction has ended (i.e., either committed or aborted). On the other hand, read (shared) locks are released regularly during the shrinking phase.
Unlike 2PL, S2PL provides strictness (a special case of cascade-less recoverability). This protocol is not appropriate in B-trees because it causes Bottleneck (while B-trees always starts searching from the parent root). [ citation needed ]
or Rigorousness, or Rigorous scheduling, or Rigorous two-phase locking
To comply with strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL), a transaction's read and write locks are released only after that transaction has ended (i.e., either committed or aborted). A transaction obeying SS2PL has only a phase 1 and lacks a phase 2 until the transaction has completed. Every SS2PL schedule is also an S2PL schedule, but not vice versa.
In computer science, ACID is a set of properties of database transactions intended to guarantee data validity despite errors, power failures, and other mishaps. In the context of databases, a sequence of database operations that satisfies the ACID properties is called a transaction. For example, a transfer of funds from one bank account to another, even involving multiple changes such as debiting one account and crediting another, is a single transaction.
In information technology and computer science, especially in the fields of computer programming, operating systems, multiprocessors, and databases, concurrency control ensures that correct results for concurrent operations are generated, while getting those results as quickly as possible.
In computer science, in the field of databases, write–read conflict, is a computational anomaly associated with interleaved execution of transactions. Specifically, a write–read conflict occurs when "a transaction requests to write an entity, for which an unclosed transaction has already made a read request."
In computer science, in the field of databases, write–write conflict, also known as overwriting uncommitted data is a computational anomaly associated with interleaved execution of transactions. Specifically, a write–write conflict occurs when "transaction requests to write an entity for which an unclosed transaction has already made a write request."
In computer science, in the field of databases, read–write conflict, also known as unrepeatable reads, is a computational anomaly associated with interleaved execution of transactions. Specifically, a read–write conflict occurs when a "transaction requests to read an entity for which an unclosed transaction has already made a write request."
Multiversion concurrency control, is a non-locking concurrency control method commonly used by database management systems to provide concurrent access to the database and in programming languages to implement transactional memory.
In computer science, multiple granularity locking (MGL) is a locking method used in database management systems (DBMS) and relational databases.
In computer science, a lock or mutex is a synchronization primitive that prevents state from being modified or accessed by multiple threads of execution at once. Locks enforce mutual exclusion concurrency control policies, and with a variety of possible methods there exist multiple unique implementations for different applications.
In database systems, isolation is one of the ACID transaction properties. It determines how transaction integrity is visible to other users and systems. A lower isolation level increases the ability of many users to access the same data at the same time, but also increases the number of concurrency effects users might encounter. Conversely, a higher isolation level reduces the types of concurrency effects that users may encounter, but requires more system resources and increases the chances that one transaction will block another.
In the fields of databases and transaction processing, a schedule of a system is an abstract model to describe the order of executions in a set of transactions running in the system. Often it is a list of operations (actions) ordered by time, performed by a set of transactions that are executed together in the system. If the order in time between certain operations is not determined by the system, then a partial order is used. Examples of such operations are requesting a read operation, reading, writing, aborting, committing, requesting a lock, locking, etc. Often, only a subset of the transaction operation types are included in a schedule.
In transaction processing, databases, and computer networking, the two-phase commit protocol is a type of atomic commitment protocol (ACP). It is a distributed algorithm that coordinates all the processes that participate in a distributed atomic transaction on whether to commit or abort the transaction. This protocol achieves its goal even in many cases of temporary system failure, and is thus widely used. However, it is not resilient to all possible failure configurations, and in rare cases, manual intervention is needed to remedy an outcome. To accommodate recovery from failure the protocol's participants use logging of the protocol's states. Log records, which are typically slow to generate but survive failures, are used by the protocol's recovery procedures. Many protocol variants exist that primarily differ in logging strategies and recovery mechanisms. Though usually intended to be used infrequently, recovery procedures compose a substantial portion of the protocol, due to many possible failure scenarios to be considered and supported by the protocol.
In concurrent programming, an operation is linearizable if it consists of an ordered list of invocation and response events, that may be extended by adding response events such that:
In computer science, software transactional memory (STM) is a concurrency control mechanism analogous to database transactions for controlling access to shared memory in concurrent computing. It is an alternative to lock-based synchronization. STM is a strategy implemented in software, rather than as a hardware component. A transaction in this context occurs when a piece of code executes a series of reads and writes to shared memory. These reads and writes logically occur at a single instant in time; intermediate states are not visible to other (successful) transactions. The idea of providing hardware support for transactions originated in a 1986 paper by Tom Knight. The idea was popularized by Maurice Herlihy and J. Eliot B. Moss. In 1995, Nir Shavit and Dan Touitou extended this idea to software-only transactional memory (STM). Since 2005, STM has been the focus of intense research and support for practical implementations is growing.
In computer science, a readers–writer is a synchronization primitive that solves one of the readers–writers problems. An RW lock allows concurrent access for read-only operations, whereas write operations require exclusive access. This means that multiple threads can read the data in parallel but an exclusive lock is needed for writing or modifying data. When a writer is writing the data, all other writers and readers will be blocked until the writer is finished writing. A common use might be to control access to a data structure in memory that cannot be updated atomically and is invalid until the update is complete.
Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means to achieve global serializability across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms.
In databases, and transaction processing, snapshot isolation is a guarantee that all reads made in a transaction will see a consistent snapshot of the database, and the transaction itself will successfully commit only if no updates it has made conflict with any concurrent updates made since that snapshot.
In concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and other transactional distributed applications, global serializability is a property of a global schedule of transactions. A global schedule is the unified schedule of all the individual database schedules in a multidatabase environment. Complying with global serializability means that the global schedule is serializable, has the serializability property, while each component database (module) has a serializable schedule as well. In other words, a collection of serializable components provides overall system serializability, which is usually incorrect. A need in correctness across databases in multidatabase systems makes global serializability a major goal for global concurrency control. With the proliferation of the Internet, Cloud computing, Grid computing, and small, portable, powerful computing devices, as well as increase in systems management sophistication, the need for atomic distributed transactions and thus effective global serializability techniques, to ensure correctness in and among distributed transactional applications, seems to increase.
Distributed concurrency control is the concurrency control of a system distributed over a computer network.
A wait-for graph in computer science is a directed graph used for deadlock detection in operating systems and relational database systems.
In databases and transaction processing the term Locks with ordered sharing comprises several variants of the two-phase locking (2PL) concurrency control protocol generated by changing the blocking semantics of locks upon conflicts. Further softening of locks eliminates thrashing.