Talk:Two-phase commit protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:58, 30 September 2009

Latest revision as of 06:32, 7 February 2024

(20 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WPDATABASEWikiProject banner shell|class=C|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Databases|importance=High}}

}}

{{tmbox

| type = notice

Line 12 ⟶ 15:

}}

}}

{{computing diagram requested|an image to replace the ASCII diagram in "Message flow" section}}

== Wikipedia text on Tree and Dynamic 2PC (D2PC) copied "as is" to a COIT 2008 conference paper ==

Line 48 ⟶ 51:

::On the other hand, with all the concerns about Wikipedia quality and credibility, it is quite amusing to find Wikipedia text in a scientific article (but without admitting, of course)... -- [[User:Comps|Comps]] ([[User talk:Comps|talk]]) 14:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

::: Default copyright in most countries is that if there's no statement, it's ''not'' free for use. --[[User:Jerome Baum|Jerome Baum]] ([[User talk:Jerome Baum|talk]]) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See also [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Plagiarism from Wikipedia found: What is the policy?]] -- [[User:Comps|Comps]] ([[User talk:Comps|talk]]) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

== Merged in [[Two-phase commit]] ==

Line 88 ⟶ 95:

Two phase commit is actually resilient to however many failures. Once the coordinator decides what to do and writes it to the log file, no matter how many failures occur, at some point the transaction will finalize. The wiki article is incorrect - the referenced paper does not say that 2PC FAILS, it says that in some cases everything must block for potentially a long time (which they argue is not acceptable in most applications). But (the basic, blocking) 2PC IS resilient to multiple failures. The problem is that it is blocking, and yes, if you remove the blocking part, it is no longer resilient (duh). Hope this helps, I think the article should be corrected but the author might want to make the corrections himself. Radu

== redo log ==

The redo log is mentioned just once. The article needs to describe how it is actually used after an entry is added to the redo log. [[User:Mre5765|Mre5765]] ([[User talk:Mre5765|talk]]) 15:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

== Yoav Raz ==

The neutrality of part of this page is disputed, as part of a wider discussion. See [[Talk:Commitment ordering]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#User:Comps / Commitment ordering]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

::I find this entire discussion improper. The "disputed neutrality" is not explained. What facts in the article(s) are disputed? The "discussion" has never been carried out in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#User:Comps / Commitment ordering]], except request for attention for a long list of related "suspected" articles that at least some of them (if not all) have been similarly tagged. The "discussion" went in March 2012 to archive with ''nothing'' factual said or concluded. The tag should be removed. I also see that it recently ignited another similar baseless "discussion" named "The Raz infection is spreading" in [[Talk:Commitment ordering]]. I cannot avoid thinking about "The Jews infection" in Nazi slur. [[Special:Contributions/65.96.201.116|65.96.201.116]] ([[User talk:65.96.201.116|talk]]) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

:::The archived main discussion: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science/Archive_10#User:Comps_.2F_Commitment_ordering]]

:::[[Special:Contributions/65.96.201.116|65.96.201.116]] ([[User talk:65.96.201.116|talk]]) 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)