article

Consensus on transaction commit

Authors:

Leslie LamportAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), Volume 31, Issue 1

Pages 133 - 160

https://doi.org/10.1145/1132863.1132867

Published: 01 March 2006 Publication History

Abstract

The distributed transaction commit problem requires reaching agreement on whether a transaction is committed or aborted. The classic Two-Phase Commit protocol blocks if the coordinator fails. Fault-tolerant consensus algorithms also reach agreement, but do not block whenever any majority of the processes are working. The Paxos Commit algorithm runs a Paxos consensus algorithm on the commit/abort decision of each participant to obtain a transaction commit protocol that uses 2F + 1 coordinators and makes progress if at least F + 1 of them are working properly. Paxos Commit has the same stable-storage write delay, and can be implemented to have the same message delay in the fault-free case as Two-Phase Commit, but it uses more messages. The classic Two-Phase Commit algorithm is obtained as the special F = 0 case of the Paxos Commit algorithm.

References

[1]

Aguilera, M. K., Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., and Toueg, S. 2001. Stable leader election. In DISC '01: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing, J. L. Welch, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2180. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 108--122.

Digital Library

[2]

Alpern, B. and Schneider, F. B. 1985. Defining liveness. Inf. Process. Lett. 21, 4 (Oct.), 181--185.

[3]

Bernstein, P. A., Hadzilacos, V., and Goodman, N. 1987. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Digital Library

[4]

Borr, A. J. 1981. Transaction monitoring in encompass: Reliable distributed transaction processing. In Proceedings of the 1981 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Ann Arbor, MI, April 29-May 1), Y. E. Lien, Ed. ACM Press, New York, NY, 155--165.

[5]

Charron-Bost, B. and Schiper, A. 2000. Uniform consensus is harder than consensus (extended abstract). Tech. rep. DSC/2000/028. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland.

[6]

De Prisco, R., Lampson, B., and Lynch, N. 1997. Revisiting the Paxos algorithm. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms (WDAG 97), M. Mavronicolas and P. Tsigas, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1320. Springer-Verlag, Saarbruken, Germany, 111--125.

Digital Library

[7]

Dwork, C., Lynch, N., and Stockmeyer, L. 1988. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 35, 2 (Apr.), 288--323.

Digital Library

[8]

Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N., and Paterson, M. S. 1985. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 32, 2 (Apr.), 374--382.

Digital Library

[9]

Gray, J. 1978. Notes on data base operating systems. In Operating Systems: An Advanced Course, R. Bayer, R. M. Graham, and G. Seegmuller, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 60. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany/New York, NY, 393--481.

Digital Library

[10]

Guerraoui, R. 1995. Revisiting the relationship between nonblocking atomic commitment and consensus. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms (WDAG95), J.-M. Hélary and M. Raynal, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 972. Spring-er-Ver-lag, Le Mont-Saint-Michel, France, 87--100.

Digital Library

[11]

Guerraoui, R., Larrea, M., and Schiper, A. 1996. Reducing the cost for nonblocking in atomic commitment. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 692--697.

Digital Library

[12]

Lamport, L. 1998. The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16, 2 (May), 133--169.

Digital Library

[13]

Lamport, L. 2001. Paxos made simple. ACM SIGACT News (Distributed Computing Column) 32, 4 (Dec.), 18--25.

[14]

Lamport, L. 2003. Specifying Systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA. A link to an electronic copy can be found online at http://lamport.org.

[15]

Lampson, B. W. 1996. How to build a highly available system using consensus. In Distributed Algorithms, O. Babaoglu and K. Marzullo, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1151. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1--17.

Digital Library

[16]

Mohan, C., Strong, R., and Finkelstein, S. 1983. Method for distributed transaction commit and recovery using Byzantine agreement within clusters of processors. In Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. The ACM Press, New York, NY, 29--43.

Digital Library

[17]

Newcomer, E. 2002. Understanding Web Services. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.

[18]

Pease, M., Shostak, R., and Lamport, L. 1980. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 27, 2 (Apr.), 228--234.

Digital Library

[19]

Skeen, D. 1981. Nonblocking commit protocols. In SIGMOD '81: Proceedings of the 1981 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM Press, New York, NY, 133--142.

Digital Library

Cited By

Zhang RYe ZCai PZhou XCai DQian L(2024)Hybrid Shared-Buffer for Multi-Master DatabasesJournal of Database Management10.4018/JDM.35692035:1(1-27)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/JDM.356920
Han FLiu HChen BJia DZhou JTeng XYang CXi HTian WTao SWang SXu QYang Z(2024)PALF: Replicated Write-Ahead Logging for Distributed DatabasesProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3685800.368580317:12(3745-3758)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3685800.3685803
Lai ZCui FFan HLo EZhou WLi F(2024)Occam's Razor for Distributed ProtocolsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing10.1145/3698038.3698514(618-636)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3698038.3698514
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Consensus on transaction commit
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software organization and properties

Recommendations

Multi-shot distributed transaction commit
Abstract
Atomic Commit Problem (ACP) is a single-shot agreement problem similar to consensus, meant to model the properties of transaction commit protocols in fault-prone distributed systems. We argue that ACP is too restrictive to capture the complexities ...
Logless one-phase commit made possible for highly-available datastores
Abstract
Highly-available datastores are widely deployed for Internet-based applications. However, many Internet-based applications are not contented with the simple data access interface provided by highly-available datastores. Distributed transaction ...
Dictatorial Transaction Processing: Atomic Commitment Without Veto Right

The current standard in governing distributed transaction termination is the so-called Two-Phase Commit protocol (2PC). The first phase of 2PC is a voting phase, where the participants in the transaction are given an ultimate right to abort that ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Database Systems

ACM Transactions on Database Systems Volume 31, Issue 1

March 2006

438 pages

ISSN:0362-5915

EISSN:1557-4644

DOI:10.1145/1132863

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2006 ACM.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 March 2006

Published in TODS Volume 31, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

216
Total Citations
View Citations
3,001
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)89
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 01 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhang RYe ZCai PZhou XCai DQian L(2024)Hybrid Shared-Buffer for Multi-Master DatabasesJournal of Database Management10.4018/JDM.35692035:1(1-27)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/JDM.356920
Han FLiu HChen BJia DZhou JTeng XYang CXi HTian WTao SWang SXu QYang Z(2024)PALF: Replicated Write-Ahead Logging for Distributed DatabasesProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3685800.368580317:12(3745-3758)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3685800.3685803
Lai ZCui FFan HLo EZhou WLi F(2024)Occam's Razor for Distributed ProtocolsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing10.1145/3698038.3698514(618-636)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3698038.3698514
Stachnik DBeckmann TRein PHirschfeld R(2024)SpecTacles: Supporting Control Flow Comprehension of Software Developers in TLA+2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)10.1109/VL/HCC60511.2024.00028(174-186)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC60511.2024.00028
Kourtis GDixon CFisher M(2024)Parameterized Verification of Leader/Follower Systems via Arithmetic ConstraintsIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.344058750:9(2458-2471)Online publication date: 9-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2024.3440587
Tao YLi BLi B(2024)On Atomicity and Confidentiality Across Blockchains Under FailuresIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering10.1109/TKDE.2023.325584236:2(766-780)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TKDE.2023.3255842
Barbareschi MCasola VEmmanuele ALombardi D(2024)A Lightweight PUF-Based Protocol for Dynamic and Secure Group Key Management in IoTIEEE Internet of Things Journal10.1109/JIOT.2024.341820711:20(32969-32984)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2024.3418207
Pan HTa QZhang MZhao ZChee YChen GOoi B(2024)FC: Adaptive Atomic Commit via Failure Detection2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00162(2026-2039)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00162
Gessert FWingerath WRitter NGessert FWingerath WRitter N(2024)Transaktionale Semantik für global verteilte AnwendungenSchnelles und skalierbares Cloud-Datenmanagement10.1007/978-3-031-54388-3_6(141-159)Online publication date: 3-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54388-3_6
Zhou SLi KXiao LCai JLiang WCastiglione A(2023)A Systematic Review of Consensus Mechanisms in BlockchainMathematics10.3390/math1110224811:10(2248)Online publication date: 11-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/math11102248
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents