Talk:Three-phase commit protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:52, 10 October 2019

Latest revision as of 08:18, 19 February 2024

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Computing}}banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Databases|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Software|importance=Low}}

}}

I have removed large parts of the article and corrected the citation of the seminal report by Skeen, which was incorrectly a reference to a follow-up theoretical analysis by Skeen and Stonebraker.

The claims made in the previous version of the Wikipedia article were theoretically unsound, and I wasted quite some time trying to convince myself otherwise, until I finally gave up and read the original papers. It is not possible to place an upper bound on the time it takes to resolve a distributed transaction without violating the basic soundness criterion, as the Wikipedia article previously claimed. This would imply that one could solve the two generals problem in finite time. Indeed, it wasn't hard to find an example of a network partitioning where the timeout-based protocol would cause two cohorts to respectively commit and abort the same transaction. This eliminates the whole point of the protocol to begin with, as it is no better than just sending the transaction to all cohorts and hoping for the best.

Line 80 ⟶ 84:

[[User:MarkKampe|MarkKampe]] ([[User talk:MarkKampe|talk]]) 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

== Unreferenced quote ==

This passage:

"Three-phase commit assumes a network with bounded delay and nodes with bounded response times; In most practical systems with unbounded network delay and process pauses, it cannot guarantee atomicity."

is a direct quote from Martin Kleppmann's ''Designing Data-Intensive Applications'', p. 359.

I am not a regular contributor, not sure what's the approach to fix it.