Hello,

While I'm thinking of the following issues of the current approach Andrey 
raised, I'm getting puzzled and can't help asking certain things.  Please 
forgive me if I'm missing some discussions in the past.

> 1. Dependency on clocks synchronization
> 2. Needs guarantees of monotonically increasing of the CSN in the case 
> of an instance restart/crash etc.
> 3. We need to delay increasing of OldestXmin because it can be needed 
> for a transaction snapshot at another node.

While Clock-SI seems to be considered the best promising for global 
serializability here,

* Why does Clock-SI gets so much attention?  How did Clock-SI become the only 
choice?

* Clock-SI was devised in Microsoft Research.  Does Microsoft or some other 
organization use Clock-SI?


Have anyone examined the following Multiversion Commitment Ordering (MVCO)?  
Although I haven't understood this yet, it insists that no concurrency control 
information including timestamps needs to be exchanged among the cluster nodes. 
 I'd appreciate it if someone could give an opinion.

Commitment Ordering Based Distributed Concurrency Control for Bridging Single 
and Multi Version Resources.
 Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Workshop on Research Issues on 
Data Engineering: Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems (RIDE-IMS), Vienna, 
Austria, pp. 189-198, April 1993. (also DEC-TR 853, July 1992)
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/281924?arnumber=281924


The author of the above paper, Yoav Raz, seems to have had strong passion at 
least until 2011 about making people believe the mightiness of Commitment 
Ordering (CO) for global serializability.  However, he complains (sadly) that 
almost all researchers ignore his theory, as written in his following  site and 
wikipedia page for Commitment Ordering.  Does anyone know why CO is ignored?

Commitment ordering (CO) - yoavraz2
https://sites.google.com/site/yoavraz2/the_principle_of_co


FWIW, some researchers including Michael Stonebraker evaluated the performance 
of various distributed concurrency control methods in 2017.  Have anyone looked 
at this?  (I don't mean there was some promising method that we might want to 
adopt.)

An Evaluation of Distributed Concurrency Control
Rachael Harding, Dana Van Aken, Andrew Pavlo, and Michael Stonebraker. 2017.
Proc. VLDB Endow. 10, 5 (January 2017), 553-564. 
https://doi.org/10.14778/3055540.3055548


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

Reply via email to