Transaction Concept
A transaction is a unit of program execution that
accesses and possibly updates various data items.
A transaction must see a consistent database.
During transaction execution the database may be
inconsistent.
When the transaction is committed, the database must
be consistent.
Two main issues to deal with:
Failures of various kinds, such as hardware failures and
system crashes
Concurrent execution of multiple transactions
ACID Properties
To preserve integrity of data, the database system must ensure:
Atomicity. Either all operations of the transaction are
properly reflected in the database or none are.
Consistency. Execution of a transaction in isolation
preserves the consistency of the database.
Isolation. Although multiple transactions may execute
concurrently, each transaction must be unaware of other
concurrently executing transactions. Intermediate
transaction results must be hidden from other concurrently
executed transactions.
That is, for every pair of transactions Ti and Tj, it appears to Ti
that either Tj, finished execution before Ti started, or Tj started
execution after Ti finished.
Durability. After a transaction completes successfully, the
changes it has made to the database persist, even if there
are system failures.
Example of Fund Transfer
Transaction to transfer $50 from account A to account B:
1. read(A)
2. A := A – 50
3. write(A)
4. read(B)
5. B := B + 50
6. write(B)
Consistency requirement – the sum of A and B is
unchanged by the execution of the transaction.
Atomicity requirement — if the transaction fails after step
3 and before step 6, the system should ensure that its
updates are not reflected in the database, else an
inconsistency will result.
Example of Fund Transfer (Cont.)
Durability requirement — once the user has been notified
that the transaction has completed (i.e., the transfer of the
$50 has taken place), the updates to the database by the
transaction must persist despite failures.
Isolation requirement — if between steps 3 and 6, another
transaction is allowed to access the partially updated
database, it will see an inconsistent database
(the sum A + B will be less than it should be).
Can be ensured trivially by running transactions serially,
that is one after the other. However, executing multiple
transactions concurrently has significant benefits.
Transaction State
Active, the initial state; the transaction stays in this state while it
is executing
Partially committed, after the final statement has been
executed.
Failed, after the discovery that normal execution can no longer
proceed.
Aborted, after the transaction has been rolled back and the
database restored to its state prior to the start of the transaction.
Two options after it has been aborted:
restart the transaction – only if no internal logical error
kill the transaction
Committed, after successful completion.
Transaction State (Cont.)
Implementation of Atomicity and
Durability
The recovery-management component of a database
system implements the support for atomicity and durability.
The shadow-database scheme:
assume that only one transaction is active at a time.
a pointer called db_pointer always points to the current
consistent copy of the database.
all updates are made on a shadow copy of the database, and
db_pointer is made to point to the updated shadow copy
only after the transaction reaches partial commit and all
updated pages have been flushed to disk.
in case transaction fails, old consistent copy pointed to by
db_pointer can be used, and the shadow copy can be
deleted.
Implementation of Atomicity and Durability
(Cont.)
The shadow-database scheme:
Assumes disks to not fail
Useful for text editors, but extremely inefficient for large
databases: executing a single transaction requires copying
the entire database.
Concurrent Executions
Multiple transactions are allowed to run concurrently in the
system. Advantages are:
increased processor and disk utilization, leading to better
transaction throughput: one transaction can be using the CPU
while another is reading from or writing to the disk
reduced average response time for transactions: short
transactions need not wait behind long ones.
Concurrency control schemes – mechanisms to achieve
isolation, i.e., to control the interaction among the
concurrent transactions in order to prevent them from
destroying the consistency of the database
Schedules
Schedules – sequences that indicate the chronological order in
which instructions of concurrent transactions are executed
a schedule for a set of transactions must consist of all instructions of
those transactions
must preserve the order in which the instructions appear in each
individual transaction.
Example Schedules
Let T1 transfer $50 from A to B, and T2 transfer 10% of
the balance from A to B. The following is a serial
schedule, in which T1 is followed by T2.
Example Schedule (Cont.)
Let T1 and T2 be the transactions defined previously. The
following schedule is not a serial schedule, but it is
equivalent to Schedule 1.
In both Schedule 1 and 3, the sum A + B is preserved.
Example Schedules (Cont.)
The following concurrent schedule (Schedule 4 in the
text) does not preserve the value of the the sum A + B.
Possible Problems
Lost update problem
Temporary update problem
Incorrect summary problem
Example transaction
Transfer money from Transfer 10% of A to
account A to B Account B
Read_item(A) Read_item(A)
A := A – 50 temp := 0.1*A
Write_item(A) A:= A-temp
Read_item(B) Write_item(A)
B := B + 50 Read_item(B)
Write_item(B) B := B + temp
Write_item(B)
Lost update problem A = 1000, B =2000
T1 T2
Read_item(A) A = 1000
A := A – 50 A = 950
Read_item(A) A = 950
temp := 0.1*A temp = 95
A:= A-temp A=950-95
Write_item(A) A = 950 = 855
Read_item(B) B = 2000
Write_item(A) A = 855
Read_item(B) B = 2000
B := B + 50 B = 2050
Write_item(B) B = 2050
B := B + temp B = 2095
Write_item(B) B = 2095
Temporary update problem
R = 3000
T1 T2
- Write_item(R) R = 1000
Read_item(R) R = 1000 -
- RollBack R = 3000
Inconsistency problem
A = 40 , B = 50, C = 30
T1 T2
A = 40
Read_item(A) A+B+C = 40+50+30 = 120
SUM = Sum+A Sum = 40
Read_item(B) B = 50
SUM = A + B
SUM = 40+50 Read_item(C) C = 30
= 90
C = C - 10 C = 30-10 =20
Write_item(C) C = 20
Read_item(A) A = 40
After A = 40+10 =50 A = A + 10
A+B+C = 50+50+20 = 120
Write_item(A) A = 50
COMMIT
Read_item(C) C = 20
SUM = SUM + C Sum = 90 + 20 = 110
Serializability
Basic Assumption – Each transaction preserves database
consistency.
Thus serial execution of a set of transactions preserves
database consistency.
A (possibly concurrent) schedule is serializable if it is
equivalent to a serial schedule. Different forms of schedule
equivalence give rise to the notions of:
1. conflict serializability
2. view serializability
We ignore operations other than read and write instructions,
and we assume that transactions may perform arbitrary
computations on data in local buffers in between reads and
writes. Our simplified schedules consist of only read and
write instructions.
Conflict Serializability
Instructions li and lj of transactions Ti and Tj respectively, conflict
if and only if there exists some item Q accessed by both li and lj,
and at least one of these instructions wrote Q.
1. li = read(Q), lj = read(Q). li and lj don’t conflict.
2. li = read(Q), lj = write(Q). They conflict.
3. li = write(Q), lj = read(Q). They conflict
4. li = write(Q), lj = write(Q). They conflict
Intuitively, a conflict between li and lj forces a (logical) temporal
order between them. If li and lj are consecutive in a schedule
and they do not conflict, their results would remain the same
even if they had been interchanged in the schedule.
Conflict Serializability (Cont.)
If a schedule S can be transformed into a schedule S´ by a
series of swaps of non-conflicting instructions, we say that
S and S´ are conflict equivalent.
We say that a schedule S is conflict serializable if it is
conflict equivalent to a serial schedule
Example of a schedule that is not conflict serializable:
T3 T4
read(Q)
write(Q)
write(Q)
We are unable to swap instructions in the above schedule
to obtain either the serial schedule < T3, T4 >, or the serial
schedule < T4, T3 >.
Conflict Serializability (Cont.)
Schedule 3 below can be transformed into Schedule 1, a
serial schedule where T2 follows T1, by series of swaps of
non-conflicting instructions. Therefore Schedule 3 is conflict
serializable.
View Serializability
Let S and S´ be two schedules with the same set of
transactions. S and S´ are view equivalent if the following
three conditions are met:
1. For each data item Q, if transaction Ti reads the initial value of Q in
schedule S, then transaction Ti must, in schedule S´, also read the
initial value of Q.
2. For each data item Q if transaction Ti executes read(Q) in schedule
S, and that value was produced by transaction Tj (if any), then
transaction Ti must in schedule S´ also read the value of Q that
was produced by transaction Tj .
3. For each data item Q, the transaction (if any) that performs the final
write(Q) operation in schedule S must perform the final write(Q)
operation in schedule S´.
As can be seen, view equivalence is also based purely on reads
and writes alone.
View Serializability (Cont.)
A schedule S is view serializable it is view equivalent to a serial
schedule.
Every conflict serializable schedule is also view serializable.
Schedule 9 (from text) — a schedule which is view-serializable
but not conflict serializable.
Every view serializable schedule that is not conflict
serializable has blind writes.
Other Notions of Serializability
Schedule 8 (from text) given below produces same
outcome as the serial schedule < T1, T5 >, yet is not
conflict equivalent or view equivalent to it.
Determining such equivalence requires analysis of
operations other than read and write.
Recoverability
Need to address the effect of transaction failures on concurrently
running transactions.
Recoverable schedule — if a transaction Tj reads a data items
previously written by a transaction Ti , the commit operation of Ti
appears before the commit operation of Tj.
The following schedule (Schedule 11) is not recoverable if T9
commits immediately after the read
If T8 should abort, T9 would have read (and possibly shown to the
user) an inconsistent database state. Hence database must
ensure that schedules are recoverable.
Recoverability (Cont.)
Cascading rollback – a single transaction failure leads to
a series of transaction rollbacks. Consider the following
schedule where none of the transactions has yet
committed (so the schedule is recoverable)
If T10 fails, T11 and T12 must also be rolled back.
Can lead to the undoing of a significant amount of work
Recoverability (Cont.)
Cascadeless schedules — cascading rollbacks cannot occur;
for each pair of transactions Ti and Tj such that Tj reads a data
item previously written by Ti, the commit operation of Ti appears
before the read operation of Tj.
Every cascadeless schedule is also recoverable
It is desirable to restrict the schedules to those that are
cascadeless
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pitfalls of Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)
The potential for deadlock exists in most locking protocols.
Deadlocks are a necessary evil.
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.
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
Phase 2: Shrinking Phase
transaction may release locks
transaction may not obtain locks
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).
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.
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)
– Second Phase:
can release a lock-S
can release a lock-X
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.
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.
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 the maximum of R-
timestamp(Q) and TS(Ti).
Timestamp-Based Protocols (Cont.)
Suppose that transaction Ti issues write(Q).
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.
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.
Otherwise, the write operation is executed, and W-
timestamp(Q) is set to TS(Ti).
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}. Hence, 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. Unlike
previous protocols, it allows some view-serializable schedules
that are not conflict-serializable.
Failure Classification
Transaction failure :
Logical errors: transaction cannot complete due to some internal
error condition
System errors: the database system must terminate an active
transaction due to an error condition (e.g., deadlock)
System crash: a power failure or other hardware or software
failure causes the system to crash.
Fail-stop assumption: non-volatile storage contents are assumed
to not be corrupted by system crash
Database systems have numerous integrity checks to prevent
corruption of disk data
Disk failure: a head crash or similar disk failure destroys all or
part of disk storage
Destruction is assumed to be detectable: disk drives use checksums
to detect failures
Recovery Algorithms
Recovery algorithms are techniques to ensure database
consistency and transaction atomicity and durability despite
failures
Recovery algorithms have two parts
1. Actions taken during normal transaction processing to ensure
enough information exists to recover from failures
2. Actions taken after a failure to recover the database contents to a
state that ensures atomicity, consistency and durability
Storage Structure
Volatile storage:
does not survive system crashes
examples: main memory, cache memory
Nonvolatile storage:
survives system crashes
examples: disk, tape, flash memory,
non-volatile (battery backed up) RAM
Stable storage:
a mythical form of storage that survives all failures
approximated by maintaining multiple copies on distinct nonvolatile
media
Stable-Storage Implementation
Maintain multiple copies of each block on separate disks
copies can be at remote sites to protect against disasters such as fire or
flooding.
Failure during data transfer can still result in inconsistent copies: Block
transfer can result in
Successful completion
Partial failure: destination block has incorrect information
Total failure: destination block was never updated
Protecting storage media from failure during data transfer (one solution):
Execute output operation as follows (assuming two copies of each block):
1. Write the information onto the first physical block.
2. When the first write successfully completes, write the same information
onto the second physical block.
3. The output is completed only after the second write successfully
completes.
Stable-Storage Implementation (Cont.)
Protecting storage media from failure during data transfer (cont.):
Copies of a block may differ due to failure during output operation. To
recover from failure:
1. First find inconsistent blocks:
1. Expensive solution: Compare the two copies of every disk block.
2. Better solution:
Record in-progress disk writes on non-volatile storage (Non-
volatile RAM or special area of disk).
Use this information during recovery to find blocks that may be
inconsistent, and only compare copies of these.
Used in hardware RAID systems
2. If either copy of an inconsistent block is detected to have an error (bad
checksum), overwrite it by the other copy. If both have no error, but are
different, overwrite the second block by the first block.
Recovery and Atomicity
Modifying the database without ensuring that the transaction will
commit may leave the database in an inconsistent state.
Consider transaction Ti that transfers $50 from account A to
account B; goal is either to perform all database modifications
made by Ti or none at all.
Several output operations may be required for Ti (to output A
and B). A failure may occur after one of these modifications have
been made but before all of them are made.
Recovery and Atomicity (Cont.)
To ensure atomicity despite failures, we first output information
describing the modifications to stable storage without modifying
the database itself.
Two approaches:
log-based recovery, and
shadow-paging
We assume (initially) that transactions run serially, that is, one
after the other.
Log-Based Recovery
A log is kept on stable storage.
The log is a sequence of log records, and maintains a record of update
activities on the database.
When transaction Ti starts, it registers itself by writing a
<Ti start>log record
Before Ti executes write(X), a log record <Ti, X, V1, V2> is written,
where V1 is the value of X before the write, and V2 is the value to be
written to X.
Log record notes that Ti has performed a write on data item Xj Xj had value
V1 before the write, and will have value V2 after the write.
When Ti finishes it last statement, the log record <Ti commit> is
written.
We assume for now that log records are written directly to stable
storage (that is, they are not buffered)
Two approaches using logs
Deferred database modification
Immediate database modification
Deferred Database Modification
The deferred database modification scheme records all
modifications to the log, but defers all the writes to after partial
commit.
Assume that transactions execute serially
Transaction starts by writing <Ti start> record to log.
A write(X) operation results in a log record <Ti, X, V> being
written, where V is the new value for X
Note: old value is not needed for this scheme
The write is not performed on X at this time, but is deferred.
When Ti partially commits, <Ti commit> is written to the log
Finally, the log records are read and used to actually execute the
previously deferred writes.
Deferred Database Modification (Cont.)
During recovery after a crash, a transaction needs to be redone if
and only if both <Ti start> and<Ti commit> are there in the log.
Redoing a transaction Ti ( redoTi) sets the value of all data items
updated by the transaction to the new values.
Crashes can occur while
the transaction is executing the original updates, or
while recovery action is being taken
example transactions T0 and T1 (T0 executes before T1):
T0: read (A) T1 : read (C)
A: - A - 50 C:- C- 100
Write (A) write (C)
read (B)
B:- B + 50
write (B)
Deferred Database Modification (Cont.)
Below we show the log as it appears at three instances of time.
If log on stable storage at time of crash is as in case:
(a) No redo actions need to be taken
(b) redo(T0) must be performed since <T0 commit> is present
(c) redo(T0) must be performed followed by redo(T1) since
<T0 commit> and <Ti commit> are present
Immediate Database Modification
The immediate database modification scheme allows
database updates of an uncommitted transaction to be made as
the writes are issued
since undoing may be needed, update logs must have both old
value and new value
Update log record must be written before database item is
written
We assume that the log record is output directly to stable storage
Can be extended to postpone log record output, so long as prior to
execution of an output(B) operation for a data block B, all log
records corresponding to items B must be flushed to stable storage
Output of updated blocks can take place at any time before or
after transaction commit
Order in which blocks are output can be different from the order
in which they are written.
Immediate Database Modification Example
Log Write Output
<T0 start>
<T0, A, 1000, 950>
To, B, 2000, 2050
A = 950
B = 2050
<T0 commit>
<T1 start> x1
<T1, C, 700, 600>
C = 600
BB, BC
<T1 commit>
BA
Note: BX denotes block containing X.
Immediate Database Modification (Cont.)
Recovery procedure has two operations instead of one:
undo(Ti) restores the value of all data items updated by Ti to their
old values, going backwards from the last log record for Ti
redo(Ti) sets the value of all data items updated by Ti to the new
values, going forward from the first log record for Ti
Both operations must be idempotent
That is, even if the operation is executed multiple times the effect is
the same as if it is executed once
Needed since operations may get re-executed during recovery
When recovering after failure:
Transaction Ti needs to be undone if the log contains the record
<Ti start>, but does not contain the record <Ti commit>.
Transaction Ti needs to be redone if the log contains both the record
<Ti start> and the record <Ti commit>.
Undo operations are performed first, then redo operations.
Immediate DB Modification Recovery
Example
Below we show the log as it appears at three instances of time.
Recovery actions in each case above are:
(a) undo (T0): B is restored to 2000 and A to 1000.
(b) undo (T1) and redo (T0): C is restored to 700, and then A and B are
set to 950 and 2050 respectively.
(c) redo (T0) and redo (T1): A and B are set to 950 and 2050
respectively. Then C is set to 600
Checkpoints
Problems in recovery procedure as discussed earlier :
1. searching the entire log is time-consuming
2. we might unnecessarily redo transactions which have already
3. output their updates to the database.
Streamline recovery procedure by periodically performing
checkpointing
1. Output all log records currently residing in main memory onto stable
storage.
2. Output all modified buffer blocks to the disk.
3. Write a log record < checkpoint> onto stable storage.
Checkpoints (Cont.)
During recovery we need to consider only the most recent
transaction Ti that started before the checkpoint, and
transactions that started after Ti.
1. Scan backwards from end of log to find the most recent
<checkpoint> record
2. Continue scanning backwards till a record <Ti start> is found.
3. Need only consider the part of log following above start record.
Earlier part of log can be ignored during recovery, and can be
erased whenever desired.
4. For all transactions (starting from Ti or later) with no <Ti commit>,
execute undo(Ti). (Done only in case of immediate modification.)
5. Scanning forward in the log, for all transactions starting
from Ti or later with a <Ti commit>, execute redo(Ti).
Example of Checkpoints
Tc Tf
T1
T2
T3
T4
checkpoint system failure
T1 can be ignored (updates already output to disk due to checkpoint)
T2 and T3 redone.
T4 undone
Deadlock Handling
Consider the following two transactions:
T1: write (X) T2: write(Y)
write(Y) write(X)
Schedule with deadlock
T1 T2
lock-X on X
write (X)
lock-X on Y
write (X)
wait for lock-X on X
wait for lock-X on Y
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 (graph-based protocol).
More Deadlock Prevention Strategies
Following schemes use transaction timestamps for the sake of
deadlock prevention alone.
wait-die scheme — non-preemptive
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
wound-wait scheme — preemptive
older transaction wounds (forces rollback) of younger transaction
instead of waiting for it. Younger transactions may wait for older
ones.
may be fewer rollbacks than wait-die scheme.
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.
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.
Deadlock Detection (Cont.)
Wait-for graph without a cycle Wait-for graph with a cycle
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 rollback: Abort the transaction and then restart it.
More 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
