Chapter 15: Concurrency Control: Database System Concepts, 6 Ed

Chapter 15 : Concurrency Control
Database System Concepts, 6th Ed.

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
Chapter 15: Concurrency Control

Lock-Based Protocols
Timestamp-Based Protocols Validation-Based Protocols Multiple Granularity
Multiversion Schemes
Insert and Delete Operations Concurrency in Index Structures
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition
15.2
Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Concurrency Control
A database must provide a mechanism that will ensure that all possible
schedules are
either conflict or view serializable, and

are recoverable and preferably cascadeless
A policy in which only one transaction can execute at a time generates
serial schedules, but provides a poor degree of concurrency
Are serial schedules recoverable/cascadeless?
Testing a schedule for serializability after it has executed is a little too
late!
Goal to develop concurrency control protocols that will assure
serializability.
15.3
Concurrency Control (Cont.)

Schedules must be conflict or view serializable, and recoverable,
for the sake of database consistency, and preferably cascadeless.

A policy in which only one transaction can execute at a time
generates serial schedules, but provides a poor degree of concurrency.

Concurrency-control schemes tradeoff between the amount of
concurrency they allow and the amount of overhead that they incur.
Some schemes allow only conflict-serializable schedules to be
generated, while others allow view-serializable schedules that are not conflict-serializable.
15.4
Lock-Based Protocols
A lock is a mechanism to control concurrent access to a data item
Data items can be locked in two modes:
1. exclusive (X) mode. Data item can be both read as well as written. X-lock is requested using lock-X instruction. 2. shared (S) mode. Data item can only be read. S-lock is requested using lock-S instruction.
Lock requests are made to concurrency-control manager. Transaction
can proceed only after request is granted.
15.5
Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)

Lock-compatibility matrix
A transaction may be granted a lock on an item if the requested lock is
compatible with locks already held on the item by other transactions.

Any number of transactions can hold shared locks on an item,
but if any transaction holds an exclusive on the item no other transaction may hold any lock on the item.
If a lock cannot be granted, the requesting transaction is made to wait till
all incompatible locks held by other transactions have been released. The lock is then granted.
15.6
Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)

Example of a transaction performing locking:
T2: lock-S(A); read (A); unlock(A);
lock-S(B);
read (B); unlock(B); display(A+B)
Locking as above is not sufficient to guarantee serializability if A
and B get updated in-between the read of A and B, the displayed sum would be wrong.
A locking protocol is a set of rules followed by all transactions
while requesting and releasing locks. Locking protocols restrict the set of possible schedules.
15.7
Pitfalls of Lock-Based Protocols

Consider the partial schedule
Neither T3 nor T4 can make progress executing lock-S(B) causes T4
to wait for T3 to release its lock on B, while executing lock-X(A) causes T3 to wait for T4 to release its lock on A. Such a situation is called a deadlock.
To handle a deadlock one of T3 or T4 must be rolled back and its locks released.
15.8
Pitfalls of Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)

The potential for deadlock exists in most locking protocols.
Starvation is also possible if concurrency control manager is badly
designed. For example:
A transaction may be waiting for an X-lock on an item, while a sequence of other transactions request and are granted an S-lock on the same item. The same transaction is repeatedly rolled back due to deadlocks.
Concurrency control manager can be designed to prevent starvation.
15.9
The Two-Phase Locking Protocol

This is a protocol which ensures conflict-serializable schedules. Phase 1: Growing Phase

transaction may obtain locks transaction may not release locks transaction may release locks transaction may not obtain locks
Phase 2: Shrinking Phase

The protocol assures serializability. It can be proved that the
transactions can be serialized in the order of their lock points (i.e., the point where a transaction acquired its final lock).
15.10
The Two-Phase Locking Protocol (Cont.)

Two-phase locking does not ensure freedom from deadlocks.
Cascading roll-back is possible under two-phase locking. To avoid
this, follow a modified protocol called strict two-phase locking. Here a transaction must hold all its exclusive locks till it commits/aborts.
Rigorous two-phase locking is even stricter: here all locks are held
till commit/abort. In this protocol transactions can be serialized in the order in which they commit.
15.11
Lock Conversions
Two-phase locking with lock conversions:
First Phase:

can acquire a lock-S on item can acquire a lock-X on item
can convert a lock-S to a lock-X (upgrade)

can release a lock-S can release a lock-X
Second Phase:

can convert a lock-X to a lock-S (downgrade)
This protocol assures serializability. But still relies on the programmer to
insert the various locking instructions.
15.12
Automatic Acquisition of Locks

A transaction Ti issues the standard read/write instruction, without
explicit locking calls.

The operation read(D) is processed as:
if Ti has a lock on D
then
read(D) else begin if necessary wait until no other transaction has a lock-X on D grant Ti a lock-S on D; read(D) end
15.13
Automatic Acquisition of Locks (Cont.)

write(D) is processed as:
if Ti has a lock-X on D then write(D) else begin if necessary wait until no other trans. has any lock on D, if Ti has a lock-S on D then upgrade lock on D to lock-X else grant Ti a lock-X on D write(D) end;
All locks are released after commit or abort
15.14
Implementation of Locking
A lock manager can be implemented as a separate
process to which transactions send lock and unlock requests.

The lock manager replies to a lock request by sending a
lock grant messages (or a message asking the transaction to roll back, in case of a deadlock).
The requesting transaction waits until its request is
answered.
The lock manager maintains a data-structure called a lock
table to record granted locks and pending requests.

The lock table is usually implemented as an in-memory
hash table indexed on the name of the data item being locked.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.15 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Lock Table
5 data items, 17, 123, 1912, 14, and 144
Dark(blue) rectangles indicate granted locks, light ones indicate waiting requests
Lock table also records the type of lock granted or requested New request is added to the end of the queue of requests for the data item, and granted if it is compatible with all earlier locks Unlock requests result in the request being deleted, and later requests are checked to see if they can now be granted If transaction aborts, all waiting or granted requests of the transaction are deleted
lock manager may keep a list of locks held by each transaction to implement this efficiently
15.16
Graph-Based Protocols
Graph-based protocols are an alternative to two-
phase locking.
Impose a partial ordering on the set D = {d1, d2
,..., dh} of all data items.

If di dj then any transaction accessing both di and dj must access di before accessing dj. Implies that the set D may now be viewed as a directed acyclic graph, called a database graph.
The tree-protocol is a simple kind of graph protocol.
15.17
Tree Protocol
1. Only exclusive locks are allowed.

2. The first lock by Ti may be on any data item. Subsequently, a data Q
can be locked by Ti only if the parent of Q is currently locked by Ti.

3. Data items may be unlocked at any time. 4. A data item that has been locked and unlocked by Ti cannot
subsequently be relocked by Ti .
Graph-Based Protocols (Cont.)

The tree protocol ensures conflict serializability as well as freedom from
deadlock. Unlocking may occur earlier in the tree-locking protocol than in the twophase locking protocol. shorter waiting times, and increase in concurrency
protocol is deadlock-free, no rollbacks are required Drawbacks Protocol does not guarantee recoverability or cascade freedom Need to introduce commit dependencies to ensure recoverability Transactions may have to lock data items that they do not access. increased locking overhead, and additional waiting time potential decrease in concurrency Schedules not possible under two-phase locking are possible under tree protocol, and vice versa.
15.19
Deadlock Handling
Consider the following two transactions:
T1:
write (X) write(Y)
T2:
write(Y) write(X)
Schedule with deadlock
15.20
Deadlock Handling
System is deadlocked if there is a set of transactions
such that every transaction in the set is waiting for another transaction in the set.
Deadlock prevention protocols ensure that the
system will never enter into a deadlock state. Some prevention strategies:

Require that each transaction locks all its data items before it begins execution (predeclaration). Impose partial ordering of all data items and require that a transaction can lock data items only in the order specified by the partial order (graphbased protocol).
15.21
More Deadlock Prevention Strategies

Following schemes use transaction timestamps for the sake of deadlock
prevention alone.
wait-die scheme non-preemptive

When Ti requests a data item currently held by Tj, Ti is allowed to wait only if Ti is older than Tj, otherwise, Ti is rolled back. older transaction may wait for younger one to release data item. Younger transactions never wait for older ones; they are rolled back instead. a transaction may die several times before acquiring needed data item When Ti requests a data item currently held by Tj, Ti is allowed to wait only if Ti is younger than Tj, otherwise, Tj is rolled back. older transaction wounds (forces rollback) of younger transaction instead of waiting for it. Younger transactions may wait for older ones.
wound-wait scheme preemptive

may be fewer rollbacks than wait-die scheme
15.22
Deadlock prevention (Cont.)

Both in wait-die and in wound-wait schemes, a rolled
back transactions is restarted with its original timestamp. Older transactions thus have precedence over newer ones, and starvation is hence avoided.
Timeout-Based Schemes:
a transaction waits for a lock only for a specified amount of time. After that, the wait times out and the transaction is rolled back. thus deadlocks are not possible simple to implement; but starvation is possible. Also difficult to determine good value of the timeout interval.
15.23 Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Deadlock Detection
Deadlocks can be described as a wait-for graph, which
consists of a pair G = (V,E),

V is a set of vertices (all the transactions in the system) E is a set of edges; each element is an ordered pair Ti Tj.
If Ti Tj is in E, then there is a directed edge from Ti to Tj,
implying that Ti is waiting for Tj to release a data item.

When Ti requests a data item currently being held by Tj, then
the edge Ti Tj is inserted in the wait-for graph. This edge is removed only when Tj is no longer holding a data item needed by Ti.
The system is in a deadlock state if and only if the wait-for
graph has a cycle. Must invoke a deadlock-detection algorithm periodically to look for cycles.
15.24
Deadlock Detection (Cont.)
Wait-for graph without a cycle
Wait-for graph with a cycle
15.25
Deadlock Recovery
When deadlock is detected:
Some transaction will have to rolled back (made a victim) to break deadlock. Select that transaction as victim that will incur minimum cost. Rollback -- determine how far to roll back transaction
Total More
rollback: Abort the transaction and then restart it.
effective to roll back transaction only as far as necessary to break deadlock.
Starvation happens if same transaction is always chosen as victim. Include the number of rollbacks in the cost factor to avoid starvation
15.26
Multiple Granularity
Allow data items to be of various sizes and define a hierarchy
of data granularities, where the small granularities are nested within larger ones.
Can be represented graphically as a tree (but don't confuse
with tree-locking protocol)

When a transaction locks a node in the tree explicitly, it
implicitly locks all the node's descendents in the same mode.

Granularity of locking (level in tree where locking is done):

fine granularity (lower in tree): high concurrency, high locking overhead coarse granularity (higher in tree): low locking overhead, low concurrency
15.27
Example of Granularity Hierarchy
The levels, starting from the coarsest (top) level are: database area file record
Intention Lock Modes

In addition to S and X lock modes, there are three additional
lock modes with multiple granularity:

intention-shared (IS): indicates explicit locking at a lower level of the tree but only with shared locks. intention-exclusive (IX): indicates explicit locking at a lower level of the tree with exclusive or shared locks shared and intention-exclusive (SIX): the subtree rooted by that node is locked explicitly in shared mode and explicit locking is being done at a lower level with exclusive-mode locks.
Intention locks allow a higher level node to be locked in S or X
mode without having to check all descendent nodes.
15.29
Compatibility Matrix with Intention Lock Modes

The compatibility matrix for all lock modes is:
15.30
Compatibility Matrix with Intention Lock Modes Protocols

Ti must lock the root of the tree first, and can lock it
in any mode
Ti can lock a node Q in S or IS mode only if Ti
currently has the parent of Q locked in either IX or IS mode.

Ti can lock a node Q in X or SIX, or IX mode only if
Ti currently has the parent of Q locked in either IX or SIX mode.

Ti can lock a node only if Ti has not previously
unlocked any node (that is , Ti is two phase).

Ti can unlock a node Q only if Ti currently has
none of children of Q locked.

Timestamp-Based Protocols
Each transaction is issued a timestamp when it enters the
system. If an old transaction Ti has time-stamp TS(Ti), a new transaction Tj is assigned time-stamp TS(Tj) such that TS(Ti) <TS(Tj).
The protocol manages concurrent execution such that the
time-stamps determine the serializability order.

In order to assure such behavior, the protocol maintains for
each data Q two timestamp values:
W-timestamp(Q) is the largest time-stamp of any transaction that executed write(Q) successfully.
R-timestamp(Q) is the largest time-stamp of any transaction that executed read(Q) successfully.
15.32
Timestamp-Based Protocols (Cont.)

The timestamp ordering protocol ensures that any
conflicting read and write operations are executed in timestamp order.

Suppose a transaction Ti issues a read(Q):
1.
If TS(Ti) < W-timestamp(Q), then Ti needs to read a value of Q that was already overwritten.
Hence, the read operation is rejected, and Ti is rolled back.
2.
If TS(Ti) W-timestamp(Q), then the read operation is executed, and R-timestamp(Q) is set to max(R-timestamp(Q), TS(Ti)).
Timestamp-Based Protocols (Cont.)

Suppose that transaction Ti issues write(Q).
1.
If TS(Ti) < R-timestamp(Q), then the value of Q that Ti is producing was needed previously, and the system assumed that that value would never be produced.
Hence, the write operation is rejected, and Ti is rolled back.
2.
If TS(Ti) < W-timestamp(Q), then Ti is attempting to write an obsolete value of Q.
Hence, this write operation is rejected, and Ti is rolled back.
3.
Otherwise, the write operation is executed, and W-timestamp(Q) is set to TS(Ti).

Correctness of Timestamp-Ordering Protocol

The timestamp-ordering protocol guarantees serializability since all
the arcs in the precedence graph are of the form:
Thus, there will be no cycles in the precedence graph.

Timestamp protocol ensures freedom from deadlock as no
transaction ever waits. But the schedule may not be cascade-free, and may not even be recoverable.
15.35
Recoverability and Cascade Freedom

Problem with timestamp-ordering protocol:
Suppose Ti aborts, but Tj has read a data item written by Ti Then Tj must abort; if Tj had been allowed to commit earlier, the schedule is not recoverable. Further, any transaction that has read a data item written by Tj must abort This can lead to cascading rollback --- that is, a chain of rollbacks
Solution 1: Recoverability and cascadelessness can be ensured by
performing all writes together at the end of the transaction

Solution 2: Recoverability and cascadelessness can be ensured by
using a limited form of locking, where reads of uncommitted items are delayed until the transaction that updated the item committed
Solution 3: Recoverability alone can be ensured by tracking uncommitted
writes, and allowing a transaction Ti to commit only after the commit of any transaction that wrote a value that Ti read.
Thomas Write Rule

Modified version of the timestamp-ordering protocol in which
obsolete write operations may be ignored under certain circumstances.

When Ti attempts to write data item Q, if TS(Ti) < W-
timestamp(Q), then Ti is attempting to write an obsolete value of {Q}.
Rather than rolling back Ti as the timestamp ordering protocol would have done, this {write} operation can be ignored.
Otherwise this protocol is the same as the timestamp ordering
protocol.
Thomas' Write Rule allows greater potential concurrency.
Allows some view-serializable schedules that are not conflict-serializable.
15.37
Validation-Based Protocol
Execution of transaction Ti is done in three phases.
1. Read and execution phase: Transaction Ti writes only to temporary local variables 2. Validation phase: Transaction Ti performs a validation test'' to determine if local variables can be written without violating serializability. 3. Write phase: If Ti is validated, the updates are applied to the database; otherwise, Ti is rolled back.
The three phases of concurrently executing transactions can be
interleaved, but each transaction must go through the three phases in that order.
Assume for simplicity that the validation and write phase occur together, atomically and serially
i.e., only one transaction executes validation/write at a time.
Also called as optimistic concurrency control since transaction
executes fully in the hope that all will go well during validation
15.38
Validation
When T1 enters validation, a check is made to see if T1
conflicted with any transaction, T2, that entered validation at an earlier time
Check uses two sets constructed during read phase:
R(T1):
identity of all database items T1 identity of all database items T1
read
W(T1):
wrote
39
Validation
Case 1: T1s read phase started after T2
finished its validation/write phase
T1 follows T2 in all conflicts, hence commit T1 (T1 follows T2 in equivalent serial order)
T1 starts
read phase T1
validation/write phase T1
time validation/write phase T2 T2 ends
40
Validation
Case 2: T1s read phase overlaps T2s
validation/write phase
If WS(T2) RS(T1) , then abort T1

read of T1 might have preceded a write of T2 a possible violation of equivalent serial order
Else commit T1 (T1 follows T2 in equivalent serial order)

T1 starts
read phase T1
validation/write phase T1
time read phase T2 validation/write phase T2 T2 ends
41
Validation
Case 3: T1s validation/write phase overlaps T2s
validation/write phase
Cannot happen since we have assumed that validation/write phases do not overlap
Hence, all possible overlaps of T1 and T2 have been
considered
T1 starts read phase T1 valid/write phase T1
read phase T2
valid/write phase T2 T2 ends
42
Validation
A more practical optimistic control allows case 3 and avoids the
bottleneck implied by allowing only one transaction at a time in the validation/write phase.
Case 3: T1s validation/write phase overlaps T2s validation/write
phase
If WS(T2) (WS(T1) RS(T1)) , then abort T1

A
read or write of T1 might have preceded a write of T2 a violation of equivalent serial order
Else commit T1 (T1 follows T2 in equivalent serial order)
T1 starts
read phase T1
valid/write phase T1
read phase T2
Database System Concepts 6th Edition
valid/write phase T2 T2 ends

43
Optimistic Concurrency Control

No locking (and hence no waiting) means
deadlocks are not possible

Rollback is a problem if optimistic
assumption is not valid: work of entire transaction is lost

With
two-phase locking, rollback occurs only with deadlock
With
timestamp-ordered control, rollback is detected before transaction completes
44
Multiversion Schemes
Multiversion schemes keep old versions of data item
to increase concurrency.

Multiversion Timestamp Ordering Multiversion Two-Phase Locking
Each successful write results in the creation of a
new version of the data item written.

Use timestamps to label versions.
When a read(Q) operation is issued, select an
appropriate version of Q based on the timestamp of the transaction, and return the value of the selected version.
reads never have to wait as an appropriate version
is returned immediately.
Multiversion Timestamp Ordering

Each data item Q has a sequence of versions <Q1, Q2,...., Qm>.
Each version Qk contains three data fields:
Content -- the value of version Qk.
W-timestamp(Qk) -- timestamp of the transaction that created (wrote) version Qk

R-timestamp(Qk) -- largest timestamp of a transaction that successfully read version Qk
when a transaction Ti creates a new version Qk of Q, Qk's W-
timestamp and R-timestamp are initialized to TS(Ti).

R-timestamp of Qk is updated whenever a transaction Tj reads
Qk, and TS(Tj) > R-timestamp(Qk).
15.46
Multiversion Timestamp Ordering (Cont)

Suppose that transaction Ti issues a read(Q) or write(Q) operation. Let Qk
denote the version of Q whose write timestamp is the largest write timestamp less than or equal to TS(Ti), TS(Ti) >= W-timestamp(Qk).
1.
If transaction Ti issues a read(Q), then the value returned is the content of version Qk.
2.
If transaction Ti issues a write(Q)

1. 2. 3.
if TS(Ti) < R-timestamp(Qk), then transaction Ti is rolled back. if TS(Ti) = W-timestamp(Qk), the contents of Qk are overwritten else a new version of Q is created.
Observe that

Reads always succeed. A write by Ti is rejected if some other transaction Tj that (in the serialization order defined by the timestamp values) should read Ti's write, has already read a version created by a transaction older than Ti.
Protocol guarantees serializability.

Multiversion Two-Phase Locking

Differentiates between read-only transactions and update
transactions
Update transactions
acquire read and write locks, and hold all locks up to the end of the transaction. That is, update transactions follow rigorous two-phase locking. They can be serialized according to their commit order. Each version of a data item has a single timestamp whose value is not obtained from a real system clock but a counter, ts-counter that is incremented during commit processing. Each successful write results in the creation of a new version of the data item written.
15.48
Multiversion Two-Phase Locking

Differentiates between read-only transactions and update
transactions
Read-only transactions

are assigned a timestamp by reading the current value of tscounter before they start execution; they follow the multiversion timestamp-ordering protocol for performing reads. When read-only transaction, Ti issues a read(Q) , the value returned is the contents of the version whose timestamp is the largest timestamp less than or equal to TS(Ti)
15.49
Multiversion Two-Phase Locking (Cont.)

When an update transaction wants to read a data item:
it obtains a shared lock on it, and reads the latest version. it obtains X lock on; it then creates a new version of the item and sets this version's timestamp to , a value greater than that of any possible timestamp. Ti sets timestamp on the versions it has created to ts-counter + 1 Only one update transaction is allowed to perform commit processing at a time.
When it wants to write an item
When update transaction Ti completes, commit processing occurs:

Read-only transactions that start after Ti increments ts-counter will see the
values updated by Ti.

Read-only transactions that start before Ti increments the ts-counter will see
the value before the updates by Ti. In either case, read-only transactions never need to wait for locks.
It also ensures that schedules are recoverable and cascadeless.
15.50
Snapshot Isolation
Snapshot Isolation is one of multiversion concurrency control
techniques. Each transaction is given its own version (snapshot) of the database when it begins. By maintaining more than one version of a data item, it is possible to allow a transaction to read an old version of data item rather than a newer version written by an uncommitted transaction The problem is that it provides too much isolation. In serializable execution, one transaction must follow a result of other. But, under snapshot isolation, neither transaction sees the updates of the others Solution 1: Give logical snapshot of database state to read only transactions, read-write transactions use normal locking Solution 2: Give snapshot of database state to every transaction, updates alone use 2-phase locking to guard against concurrent updates
Benefits of SI
Reading is never blocked
and also doesnt block other transaction activities Performance similar to Read Committed Avoids the usual anomalies No dirty read : A dirty read occurs when a transaction is allowed to read data modified by another running transaction and not yet committed. No lost update : A lost update occurs when two transactions read the same object and then modify this object independently. The transaction that is committed last overwrites the changes made by the earlier transaction. No non-repeatable read : A non-repeatable read occurs, when during the course of a transaction, a row is retrieved twice and the values within the row differ between reads. No phantoms : A phantom read occurs when, in the course of a transaction, two identical queries are executed, and the collection of rows returned by the second query is different from the first.
15.52
Problems with SI
SI
does not always give serializable executions

Serializable:
among two concurrent transactions, one sees the effects of the other
Result:
Integrity constraints can be violated
15.53
Weak Levels of Consistency in SQL

SQL allows non-serializable executions
Serializable: is the default Repeatable read: allows only committed records to be read, and repeating a read should return the same value (so read locks should be retained)
However, the phantom phenomenon need not be prevented T1 may see some records inserted by T2, but may not see others inserted by T2 Read committed: same as degree two consistency, but most systems implement it as cursor-stability Read uncommitted: allows even uncommitted data to be read In many database systems, read committed is the default consistency level has to be explicitly changed to serializable when required set isolation level serializable
15.54
End of Chapter (Assignment)
Database System Concepts, 6th Ed.

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use

Chapter 15: Concurrency Control: Database System Concepts, 6 Ed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 15: Concurrency Control: Database System Concepts, 6 Ed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 15: Concurrency Control: Database System Concepts, 6 Ed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 15 : Concurrency Control

Database System Concepts, 6th Ed.

Chapter 15: Concurrency Control

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

either conflict or view serializable, and

A policy in which only one transaction can execute at a time generates

serial schedules, but provides a poor degree of concurrency

Are serial schedules recoverable/cascadeless?

Testing a schedule for serializability after it has executed is a little too

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Concurrency Control (Cont.)

for the sake of database consistency, and preferably cascadeless.

generates serial schedules, but provides a poor degree of concurrency.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

can proceed only after request is granted.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)

A transaction may be granted a lock on an item if the requested lock is

compatible with locks already held on the item by other transactions.

If a lock cannot be granted, the requesting transaction is made to wait till

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)

T2: lock-S(A); read (A); unlock(A);

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Pitfalls of Lock-Based Protocols

Neither T3 nor T4 can make progress executing lock-S(B) causes T4

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Pitfalls of Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)

designed. For example:

Concurrency control manager can be designed to prevent starvation.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

The Two-Phase Locking Protocol

Phase 2: Shrinking Phase

The protocol assures serializability. It can be proved that the

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

The Two-Phase Locking Protocol (Cont.)

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

can acquire a lock-S on item can acquire a lock-X on item

can convert a lock-S to a lock-X (upgrade)

can convert a lock-X to a lock-S (downgrade)

This protocol assures serializability. But still relies on the programmer to

insert the various locking instructions.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Automatic Acquisition of Locks

explicit locking calls.

Database System Concepts - 6th Edition

Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan

Automatic Acquisition of Locks (Cont.)