KGiSL Institute of Technology

(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi; Affiliated to Anna University, Chennai)

Recognized by UGC, Accredited by NBA (IT)
365, KGiSL Campus, Thudiyalur Road, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore – 641035.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Name of the Faculty : Mr BALAKRISHNAN D

Subject Name & Code : CS3492/Database Management Systems

Branch & Department : Computer Science and Business Systems

Year & Semester : II / IV

Academic Year :2023-24

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Syllabus

UNIT III TRANSACTIONS

Transaction Concepts – ACID Properties – Schedules – Serializability –
Transaction support in SQL – Need for Concurrency – Concurrency control –
Two Phase Locking- Timestamp – Multiversion – Validation and Snapshot
isolation– Multiple Granularity locking – Deadlock Handling – Recovery
Concepts – Recovery based on deferred and immediate update – Shadow
paging – ARIES Algorithm

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
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.
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 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).

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
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 afterCS3492/Database
commit Management
or abortSystems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 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.
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Deadlock Detection (Cont.)

Wait-for graph without a cycle Wait-for graph with a cycle

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.
• 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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Example of Granularity Hierarchy

The levels, starting from the coarsest (top) level are

• database
• area
• file
• record
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 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 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Multiple Granularity Locking Scheme
• Transaction Ti can lock a node Q, using the following rules:
1. The lock compatibility matrix must be observed.
2. The root of the tree must be locked first, and may be locked in any mode.
3. A node Q can be locked by Ti in S or IS mode only if the parent of Q is currently locked by
Ti in either IX or IS mode.
4. A node Q can be locked by Ti in X, SIX, or IX mode only if the parent of Q is currently
locked by Ti in either IX or SIX mode.
5. Ti can lock a node only if it has not previously unlocked any node (that is, Ti is two-phase).
6. Ti can unlock a node Q only if none of the children of Q are currently locked by Ti.
• Observe that locks are acquired in root-to-leaf order, whereas they are released in leaf-to-root
order.
• Lock granularity escalation: in case there are too many locks at a particular level, switch to
higher granularity S or X lock

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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)).

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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).

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Example Use of the Protocol
• A partial schedule for several data items for transactions with timestamps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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
MX3084/DRRM/III CSE/V SEM/KG-KiTE
 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

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Schedule Produced by Validation
• Example of schedule produced using validation

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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 Q k
• 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).

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 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).
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. if TS(Ti) < R-timestamp(Qk), then transaction Ti is rolled back.
2. if TS(Ti) = W-timestamp(Qk), the contents of Qk are overwritten
3. 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.
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
• 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.
• Each successful write results in the creation of a new version of the data item
written.
• Each version of a data item has a single timestamp whose value is obtained from a
counter ts-counter that is incremented during commit processing.
• Read-only transactions are assigned a timestamp by reading the current value of ts-
counter before they start execution; they follow the multiversion timestamp-ordering
protocol for performing reads.

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

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.
• When it wants to write an item
• it obtains X lock on; it then creates a new version of the item and sets this version's
timestamp to .
• When update transaction Ti completes, commit processing occurs:
• Ti sets timestamp on the versions it has created to ts-counter + 1
• Ti increments ts-counter by 1
• 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.
• Only serializable schedules are produced.
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 MVCC: Implementation Issues
• Creation of multiple versions increases storage overhead
• Extra tuples
• Extra space in each tuple for storing version information
• Versions can, however, be garbage collected
• E.g. if Q has two versions Q5 and Q9, and the oldest active transaction has
timestamp > 9, than Q5 will never be required again

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Snapshot Isolation
• Motivation: Decision support queries that read large amounts of data have concurrency
conflicts with OLTP transactions that update a few rows
• Poor performance results
• Solution 1: Give logical “snapshot” of database state to read only transactions, read-
write transactions use normal locking
• Multiversion 2-phase locking
• Works well, but how does system know a transaction is read only?
• Solution 2: Give snapshot of database state to every transaction, updates alone use 2-
phase locking to guard against concurrent updates
• Problem: variety of anomalies such as lost update can result
• Partial solution: snapshot isolation level (next slide)
• Proposed by Berenson et al, SIGMOD 1995
• Variants implemented in many database systems
• E.g. Oracle, PostgreSQL, SQL Server 2005
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 Snapshot Isolation
• A transaction T1 executing with T1 T2 T3
Snapshot Isolation
W(Y := 1)
• takes snapshot of committed
data at start Commit

• always reads/modifies data in its Start

own snapshot R(X)  0
• updates of concurrent R(Y) 1
transactions are not visible to T1 W(X:=2
• writes of T1 complete when it )
commits W(Z:=3)
• First-committer-wins rule:
Commi
• Commits only if no other t
concurrent transaction hasConcurrent updates not visible
R(Z)  0
already written data that T1 Own updates are visible
Not first-committer of X
intends to write. R(Y)  1
Serialization error, T2 is rolled back
W(X:=3)
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
Commit-
 Snapshot Read
 Concurrent updates invisible to snapshot read

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

Snapshot Write: First Committer Wins

• Variant: “First-updater-wins”
• Check for concurrent updates when write occurs by locking item
• But lock should be held till all concurrent transactions have finished
• (Oracle uses this plus some extra features)
• Differs only in when abort occurs, otherwise equivalent
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 Benefits of SI
• Reading is never blocked,
• and also doesn’t block other txns activities
• Performance similar to Read Committed
• Avoids the usual anomalies
• No dirty read
• No lost update
• No non-repeatable read
• Predicate based selects are repeatable (no phantoms)
• Problems with SI
• SI does not always give serializable executions
• Serializable: among two concurrent txns, one sees the effects of the other
• In SI: neither sees the effects of the other
• Result: Integrity constraints can be violated
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 Snapshot Isolation
• E.g. of problem with SI
• T1: x:=y
• T2: y:= x
• Initially x = 3 and y = 17
• Serial execution: x = ??, y = ??
• if both transactions start at the same time, with snapshot isolation: x = ?? , y =
??
• Called skew write
• Skew also occurs with inserts
• E.g:
• Find max order number among all orders
• Create a new order with order number = previous max + 1

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 Snapshot Isolation Anomalies
• SI breaks serializability when txns modify different items, each based on a previous
state of the item the other modified
• Not very common in practice
• E.g., the TPC-C benchmark runs correctly under SI
• when txns conflict due to modifying different data, there is usually also a
shared item they both modify too (like a total quantity) so SI will abort one of
them
• But does occur
• Application developers should be careful about write skew
• SI can also cause a read-only transaction anomaly, where read-only transaction may
see an inconsistent state even if updaters are serializable
• We omit details
• Using snapshots to verify primary/foreign key integrity can lead to inconsistency
• Integrity constraint checking usually done outside of snapshot
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 SI In Oracle and PostgreSQL
• Warning: SI used when isolation level is set to serializable, by Oracle, and
PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.1
• PostgreSQL’s implementation of SI (versions prior to 9.1) described in Section
26.4.1.3
• Oracle implements “first updater wins” rule (variant of “first committer wins”)
• concurrent writer check is done at time of write, not at commit time
• Allows transactions to be rolled back earlier
• Oracle and PostgreSQL < 9.1 do not support true serializable execution
• PostgreSQL 9.1 introduced new protocol called “Serializable Snapshot Isolation”
(SSI)
• Which guarantees true serializabilty including handling predicate reads (coming
up)

CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE

 SI In Oracle and PostgreSQL
• Can sidestep SI for specific queries by using select .. for update in Oracle and
PostgreSQL
• E.g.,
1. select max(orderno) from orders for update
2. read value into local variable maxorder
3. insert into orders (maxorder+1, …)
• Select for update (SFU) treats all data read by the query as if it were also updated,
preventing concurrent updates
• Does not always ensure serializability since phantom phenomena can occur
(coming up)
• In PostgreSQL versions < 9.1, SFU locks the data item, but releases locks when the
transaction completes, even if other concurrent transactions are active
• Not quite same as SFU in Oracle, which keeps locks until all
• concurrent transactions have completed
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE
 SI In Oracle and PostgreSQL
• Can sidestep SI for specific queries by using select .. for update in Oracle and
PostgreSQL
• E.g.,
1. select max(orderno) from orders for update
2. read value into local variable maxorder
3. insert into orders (maxorder+1, …)
• Select for update (SFU) treats all data read by the query as if it were also updated,
preventing concurrent updates
• Does not always ensure serializability since phantom phenomena can occur
(coming up)
• In PostgreSQL versions < 9.1, SFU locks the data item, but releases locks when the
transaction completes, even if other concurrent transactions are active
• Not quite same as SFU in Oracle, which keeps locks until all
• concurrent transactions have completed
CS3492/Database Management Systems /II CSBS/IV SEM/KG-KiTE