Concurrency Control
Database System Concepts, 6th Ed.
©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
See www.db-book.com for conditions on re-use
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 the concurrency-control manager
by the programmer. Transaction can proceed only after
request is granted.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.2 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.3 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.4 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
The Two-Phase Locking Protocol
This protocol 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).
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.5 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
The Two-Phase Locking Protocol (Cont.)
There can be conflict serializable schedules that cannot be
obtained if two-phase locking is used.
However, in the absence of extra information (e.g., ordering of
access to data), two-phase locking is needed for conflict
serializability in the following sense:
Given a transaction Ti that does not follow two-phase
locking, we can find a transaction Tj that uses two-phase
locking, and a schedule for Ti and Tj that is not conflict
serializable.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.6 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.7 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.8 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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 transaction 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
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.9 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Deadlocks
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.10 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Deadlocks (Cont.)
Two-phase locking does not ensure freedom from deadlocks.
In addition to deadlocks, there is a possibility of starvation.
Starvation occurs if the 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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.11 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Deadlocks (Cont.)
The potential for deadlock exists in most locking protocols.
Deadlocks are a necessary evil.
When a deadlock occurs there is a possibility of cascading roll-
backs.
Cascading roll-back is possible under two-phase locking. To
avoid this, follow a modified protocol called strict two-phase
locking -- 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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.12 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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 15.13 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Lock Table
Dark blue rectangles indicate granted
locks; light blue 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
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.14 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.15 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
(older means smaller timestamp) Younger transactions never
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.16 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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. If
the lock has not been granted within that time, the transaction is
rolled back and restarted,
Thus, deadlocks are not possible
simple to implement; but starvation is possible. Also difficult to
determine good value of the timeout interval.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.17 ©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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.18 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Deadlock Detection (Cont.)
Wait-for graph without a cycle Wait-for graph with a cycle
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.19 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.20 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.21 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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)).
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.22 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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).
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.23 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Example Use of the Protocol
A partial schedule for several data items for transactions with
timestamps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.24 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.25 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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:
A transaction is structured such that its writes are all performed at
the end of its processing
All writes of a transaction form an atomic action; no transaction
may execute while a transaction is being written
A transaction that aborts is restarted with a new timestamp
Solution 2: Limited form of locking: wait for data to be committed
before reading it
Solution 3: Use commit dependencies to ensure recoverability
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.26 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.27 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
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
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.28 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Validation-Based Protocol (Cont.)
Each transaction Ti has 3 timestamps
Start(Ti) : the time when Ti started its execution
Validation(Ti): the time when Ti entered its validation phase
Finish(Ti) : the time when Ti finished its write phase
Serializability order is determined by timestamp given at validation
time; this is done to increase concurrency.
Thus, TS(Ti) is given the value of Validation(Ti).
This protocol is useful and gives greater degree of concurrency if
probability of conflicts is low.
because the serializability order is not pre-decided, and
relatively few transactions will have to be rolled back.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.29 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Validation Test for Transaction Tj
If for all Ti with TS (Ti) < TS (Tj) either one of the following condition
holds:
finish(Ti) < start(Tj)
start(Tj) < finish(Ti) < validation(Tj) and the set of data items
written by Ti does not intersect with the set of data items read
by Tj.
then validation succeeds and Tj can be committed. Otherwise,
validation fails and Tj is aborted.
Justification: Either the first condition is satisfied, and there is no
overlapped execution, or the second condition is satisfied and
the writes of Tj do not affect reads of Ti since they occur after
Ti has finished its reads.
the writes of Ti do not affect reads of Tj since Tj does not read
any item written by Ti.
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.30 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Schedule Produced by Validation
Example of schedule produced using validation
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.31 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
Deadlocks
Consider the following two transactions:
T1: write (X) T2: write(Y)
write(Y) write(X)
Schedule with deadlock
Database System Concepts - 6th Edition 15.32 ©Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan
