Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Marshall" Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Efficient way of global concurrency control/serializability in federated databases?? Date: 9 Oct 2006 20:29:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: <1160450947.261074.78100@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> References: <1160350110.389862.135370@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1160426446.780144.26590@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.4.95.46 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1160450952 5973 127.0.0.1 (10 Oct 2006 03:29:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:29:12 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1160426446.780144.26590@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.4.95.46; posting-account=s2xCFw0AAAD2mIwYYHAqjdsecwG0axmW Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:45661 On Oct 9, 1:40 pm, "Jan Hidders" wrote: > anonym wrote: > > Hi, > > > I am preparing an analysis report and need some help. > > Currently, what is the most efficient / most used way of ensuring > > global concurrency control / serializability in federated > > databases/multidatabases ??http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-phase-commit_protocol Jan, Word on the street is that the world is giving up on two phase commit. Although I'm not sure I agree, I can see some of the motivations. The thing that bothers me, though, is that any potential replacements are necessarily application-specific, and can't be handled in a fully automatic way. Any good papers to read about alternatives to 2PC? Marshall