BITS, PILANI – K. K.

BIRLA GOA CAMPUS

Database Systems
(CS F212)
by

Dr. Shubhangi
Dept. of CS and IS

4/28/2023 BITS, PILANI – K. K. BIRLA GOA CAMPUS 1

Concurrency Control
 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.
– Exclusive locks are placed on resources whenever Write
operations(INSERT,UPDATE and DELETE) are performed.
– Only one exclusive lock can be placed on a resource at a time i.e; the
first user who acquires an exclusive lock will continue to have the
sole ownership of the resource, and no other user can acquire an
exclusive lock on that resource.

2. shared (S) mode.

– Data item can only be read.
– Shared locks are placed on resources whenever a read operation (select) is
performed.
– Multiple shared locks can be simultaneously set on a resource.
 Syntax
lock table <tablename> [,<tablename>]…
in {row share|row exclusive|share update|
share|share row exclusive|exclusive}

• Lock requests are made to concurrency -

control manager. Transaction can proceed only
after request is granted.

• Locks are released when transaction is

commited or rolled back.
 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 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.
 Lock Management
• Lock and unlock requests are handled by the lock manager.
• 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 datastructure 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
• Lock table entry:
– Number of transactions currently holding a lock
– Type of lock held (shared or exclusive)
– Pointer to queue of lock requests
• Locking and unlocking have to be atomic operations.
Lock Table • Black rectangles indicate granted locks,
white ones 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
 Pitfalls of Lock-Based Protocols
• 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.
 Pitfalls of Lock-Based Protocols (Cont.)
• The potential for deadlock exists in most locking
protocols. Deadlocks are a necessary evil.
• Starvation is also possible if 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.
 The Two-Phase Locking Protocol
• This is a protocol which 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
• This 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).
 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)
 Eg: update with where clause
 Favours concurrency but does not prevent deadlocks

• Second Phase:
can release a lock-S
can release a lock-X
can convert a lock-X to a lock-S (downgrade)
 Reduces concurrency
 Improves throughput by reducing deadlocks

• This protocol assures serializability. But still relies on the

programmer to insert the various locking instructions.
 The Two-Phase Locking Protocol (Cont.)
• Two-phase locking does not ensure freedom from
deadlocks
• Cascading roll-back is possible under two-phase
locking. To avoid this, follow a modified protocol
called Strict two-phase locking. Here a transaction
must hold all its exclusive locks till it
commits/aborts. (dynamic databases and phantom
problem: index locking)
• 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.
 Dynamic databases and phantom
problem: index locking
• T1: find oldest sailor in each rating level
• T2: insert sailor having age=96 and rating =1
: and delete oldest sailor having rating=2

(Ref: Ramkrishnan eg pg 560)

 Graph-Based Protocols
• Graph-based protocols are an alternative to two-
phase locking.
• Impose a partial ordering  on the set D = {d1, d2
,..., dh} of all data items.
– If di  dj then any transaction accessing both
di and dj must access di before accessing dj.
– Implies that the set D may now be viewed as a
directed acyclic graph, called a database
graph.

• The tree-protocol is a simple kind of graph

protocol.
 Graph-Based Protocols (Cont.)
• The tree protocol ensures conflict serializability as well
as freedom from deadlock.
• Unlocking may occur earlier in the tree-locking protocol
than in the two-phase locking protocol.
– shorter waiting times, and increase in concurrency
– protocol is deadlock-free, no rollbacks are required
– the abort of a transaction can still lead to cascading rollbacks.
• However, in the tree-locking protocol, a transaction
may have to lock data items that it does not access.
– increased locking overhead, and additional waiting time
– potential decrease in concurrency
• Schedules not possible under two-phase locking are
possible under tree protocol, and vice versa.
 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.
 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 the maximum of R-timestamp(Q) and TS(Ti).
 Timestamp-Based Protocols (Cont.)
Suppose that transaction Ti issues write(Q).
• 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.
• 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.
• Otherwise, the write operation is executed, and
W-timestamp(Q) is set to TS(Ti).
 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}. Hence, 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.
Unlike previous protocols, it allows some view-serializable
schedules that are not conflict-serializable.
 Correctness of Timestamp-Ordering Protocol
• The timestamp-ordering protocol guarantees
serializability since all the arcs in the precedence
graph are of the form:

transaction transaction
with smaller with larger
timestamp timestamp

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.
 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:
 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
 Exercise
Time T19 T20 T21
t1 begin
t2 R(balx)
t3 balx=balx+10
t4 W(balx) begin
t5 R(baly)
t6 baly=baly+20 begin
t7 R(baly)
t8 W(baly)
t9 baly=baly+30
t10 W(baly)
t11 balz=100
t12 W(balz)
t13 balz=50 commit
t14 W(balz) begin
t15 commit R(baly)
t16 baly=baly+20
t17 W(baly)
t18 commit
 Answer
• At time t8, the write by transaction T20
violates the first timestamping write rule and
hence must be aborted and restarted at time
t14.

• At time t14, the write transaction T19 can

safely be ignored as it would have been
overwritten by the write of transaction T21 at
time t12.
 Multiple Granularity
• The size of data items chosen as the unit of protection by
a concurrency control protocol is called as 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
 Example of Granularity Hierarchy
DB

F1 F2 F3

P1 P2 P3

R1 R2

f1 f2

The highest level in the example hierarchy is the entire

database.
The levels below are of type file, page(area), record and
field in that order.
 Granularity of locking
• Whenever a node is locked, all its descendants are also
locked.
• If another transaction requests a lock on any of the
descendants of the locked node, the DBMS checks the
hierarchical path from root to the requested node to
determine any of its ancestors are locked before
deciding whether to grant the lock. If it is locked then it
denies the request.
• A transaction may lock on a node if the descendant of
the node is already locked.
 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.
 Compatibility Matrix with Intention Lock Modes
• The compatibility matrix for all lock modes is:

• Allow transactions to lock at each level, but with a

special protocol using new “intention” locks.

• Before locking an item, transaction

must set “intention locks” -- IS IX S X
on all its ancestors. -- y y y y y
IS y y y y n
• For unlock, go from specific
IX y y y n n
to general (i.e., bottom-up).
S y y n y n
X y n n n n
 Two-phase locking protocol with new
compatibility matrix
To ensure serializability with locking levels, a
two-phase locking protocol is used as follows:
• No lock can be granted once any node has been
unlocked.
• No node may be locked until its parent is locked
by an intention lock.
• No node may be unlocked until all its
descendants are unlocked.
 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.
 Deadlock Handling
• Consider the following two transactions:
T1: write (X) T2: write(Y)
write(Y) write(X)
• Schedule with deadlock
T1 T2

lock-X on X
write (X)
lock-X on Y
write (Y)
wait for lock-X on X
wait for lock-X on Y
 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: Cycle of transactions waiting for locks to be
released by each other.
• Two ways of dealing with deadlocks:
– Deadlock prevention
– Deadlock detection and Deadlock recovery

• 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).
 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. Younger transactions never wait
for older ones; they are rolled back instead.
– a transaction may die several times before acquiring
needed data item
 wait-die scheme Example

• See the explanation in next slide

• wait-die scheme :
• This scheme is based on a non-preemptive technique.
• When a transaction Ti requests a data item currently held
by Tj, Ti is allowed to wait only if it has a timestamp smaller
than that of Tj (i.e. Ti is older than Tj) i.e. if the requesting
transaction is older than the transaction that holds the lock on
the requesting transaction is allowed to wait.
• If the requesting transaction is younger than the
transaction that holds the lock requesting transaction is
aborted and rolled back.
• For example: suppose that transactions T22, T23, and T24
have timestamps 5, 10, and 15 respectively. If T22 requests a
data item held by T23, then T22 will wait. If T24 requests a
data item held by T23, then T24 will be rolled back.
 Deadlock Prevention Strategies
contd…
• 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.
 wound-wait scheme Example

• See the explanation in next slide

• wound-wait scheme
• This scheme is based on a preemptive technique and is a
counter part to the wait-die scheme when transaction Ti
requests a data item currently held by Tj, Ti, is allowed to wait
only if it has a timestamp larger than that of Tj (i.e. Ti is
younger than Tj). Otherwise, Tj is rolled back (Tj is wounded
by Ti).
• i.e. if a younger transaction requests a data item held by
an older transaction, the younger transaction is allowed to
wait.
• If a younger transaction holds a data item requested by
an older one, the younger transaction is the one that would
be aborted and rolled back. (i.e. younger transaction is
wounded by an older transaction and dies)
• Considering example given for wait-die scheme, if T22
requests a data item held by T23, then the data item will be
preempted from T23, and T23 will be rolled back if T24
requests a data item held by T23, then T24 will wait.
 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. After that, the wait times out and the
transaction is rolled back.
– thus deadlocks are not possible
– simple to implement; but starvation is possible. Also
difficult to determine good value of the timeout
interval.
 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.
Example: Deadlock Detection (Cont.)

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

 Deadlock Recovery
When deadlock is detected :
1. Some transaction will have to rolled back (made a victim)
to break deadlock. Select that transaction as victim that
will incur minimum cost.

2. Rollback : determine how far to roll back transaction

• Total rollback : Abort the transaction and then restart
it.
• Partial rollback :More effective to roll back transaction
only as far as necessary to break deadlock.

3. Starvation happens if same transaction is always chosen

as victim. Include the number of rollbacks in the cost
factor to avoid starvation.