Abstract
The current standard in governing distributed transaction termination is the so-called Two-Phase Commit protocol (2PC). The first phase of 2PC is a voting phase, where the participants in the transaction are given an ultimate right to abort that transaction. Giving up that veto right from all participants reduces the overhead of the atomic commitment protocol but also imposes some restrictions on the concurrency control and recovery protocols employed by the participants in the transaction.
This paper gives, for the first time, a precise abstract specification of the Dictatorial Atomic Commitment (DAC) problem, resulting from removing veto rights from the traditional Atomic Commitment (AC) problem. We characterize transactional systems that are compatible with that specification in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions on concurrency control and recovery protocols, and discuss the practical impacts of those conditions. From this study, we capitalize on existing protocols that solve the DAC problem, and propose a new protocol that broadens the applicability of dictatorial transaction processing in order to meet the requirements of today's distributed environments. We point out interesting performance tradeoffs, and describe the implementation of our protocol in the context of current transactional standards, initially designed with 2PC in mind.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
M. Abdallah, C. Bobineau, R. Guerraoui, and P. Pucheral, “Specification of the transaction service,” Esprit Project OpenDREAMS-II no25262, Deliverable noR13, 1998.
M. Abdallah and P. Pucheral, “A low-cost non-blocking atomic commitment protocol for asynchronous systems,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems, 1999.
Y. Al-Houmaily and P.K. Chrysanthis, “Two-phase commit in gigabit-networked distributed databases,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, 1995.
Y. Al-Houmaily and P.K. Chrysanthis, “The implicit-yes vote commit protocol with delegation of commitment,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, 1996.
P.A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems, Addison Wesley: Reading, MA, 1987.
C. Bobineau, L. Bouganim, P. Pucheral, and P. Valduriez, “PicoDBMS: Scaling down database techniques for the smartcard,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, 2000.
C. Bobineau, P. Pucheral, and M. Abdallah, “A unilateral commit protocol for mobile and disconnected computing,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, 2000.
Y. Breitbart, H. Garcia-Molina, and A. Silbershatz, “Overview of multidatabase transaction management,” VLDB Journal, vol. 1, no.2, 1992.
C. Dwork and D. Skeen, “The inherent cost of non-blocking commitment,” in Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1983.
J. Gray, “Notes on database operating systems,” in Operating Systems: An Advanced Course, LNCS, vol. 60, Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1978.
J. Gray, “A comparison of the byzantine agreement problem and the transaction commit problem,” in Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computing, LNCS, vol. 448, Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1987.
J. Gray and A. Reuter, Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, 1993.
V. Hadzilacos, “A theory of reliability in database systems,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 35, no.1, 1988.
International Standardization Organization, Information Processing Systems-Database Language SQL, ISO/IEC 9075, 1992.
IONA, Orbix 2.3 Programmer's Guide, IONA Technologies Plc, 1997.
J. Liang, M. Saheb, and F. Giudice, “Maao OTS version2,” ACTS Project ACTranS, Deliverable noD2aa, 1998. Available at http://www.actrans.org/Publications.html.
C. Mohan, B. Lindsay, and R. Obermarck, “Transaction management in the R* distributed database management system,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 11, no.4, 1986.
Object Management Group, Object Transaction Service, Document 97.12.17, OMG editor, 1997.
Object Management Group, The common object request broker: Architecture and specification, document 99.10.07, OMG editor, 1999.
A. Sheth and J. Larson, “Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases,” ACM computing surveys, vol. 22, no.3, 1990.
J. Stamos and F. Cristian, “A low-cost atomic commit protocol,” in Proc. IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, 1990.
J. Stamos and F. Cristian, “Coordinator log transaction execution protocol,” Journal of Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 1, no.4, 1993.
M. Stonebraker, “Concurrency control and consistency of multiple copies of data in distributed INGRES,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 5, no.3, 1979.
X/Open CAE Specification, Distributed Transaction Processing: The XA Specification, XO/CAE/91/300, 1991.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abdallah, M., Guerraoui, R. & Pucheral, P. Dictatorial Transaction Processing: Atomic Commitment Without Veto Right. Distributed and Parallel Databases 11, 239–268 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014067816533
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014067816533