Talk:Two-phase locking

message: Should "Two-phase locking" be hyphenated? SeanMon 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation 

message: Recently, Touko_vk added the following note:
  Note that the two phase locking shouldn't be confused with the Two-phase
  commit protocol, a distributed algorithm for distributed transactions.
The note was subsequently removed by Comps.
I believe that Touko_vk's note actually provided value: The two concepts sound very much alike, so I've often been confused because I failed to pay attention to which of the two was being talked about.
I suggest that Touko_vk's note be re-introduced, but in a more "discrete way":
  Note that the two phase locking protocol shouldn't be confused with 
  the Two-phase commit protocol.
(Shorter, and with only one link, in order to cause less distraction from the main article).
Troels Arvin (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and re-added to the article. Neilc (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: IMHO they are still somewhat close on their subject, both are related to transactions and concurrency control even though in different fields. Personally I first confused those subjects at first for a moment (even though not with Wikipedia but with a discussion on the subject) Touko vk (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of two-phase commit 

message: Both articles' topic is the same so I think they should be merged. Svick (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the merge tags and redirected Strict two-phase locking to this article. Svick (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Strict two-phase locking]] 

message: 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. —Ruud 14:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commitment ordering 

message: HyperSQL, also known as HSQLDB, claims to implement two-phase locking. The article says "Neither 2PL or S2PL in their general forms are known to be used in practice". I assume that means that HSQLDB has some variation or limited form of 2PL, not 2PL as defined by theoreticians.
A transaction management algorithm that is difficult or impossible to implement or is prohibitively slow to execute is of limited usefulness. I am interested in the interaction between theory and practice and I would like to know in what way HSQLDB doesn't "really" do 2PL, and perhaps an assessment of how close it gets.
More generally, if it is the case that 2PL is not implemented in any DBMS that is used at all widely, why not? What are the barriers to implementation? Is there an opportunity here?
   - The barriers are looking in the future. In order to unlock a lock you have to be sure, that the transaction in question will never try to access a new attribute. Therefore, 2PL can only be implemented if the scheduler starts to work after knowing the complete transaction. This again would limit the set of possible transactions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.112.18 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In what way does HyperSQL not implement two-phase locking? 

message: This article is highly misleading. I came across this accidentally when I found a false statement in the wikipedia article on deadlocks. The main problem is that this article uses a non-standard terminology in which terms like "2PL" are used for both an algorithm and a class of schedules. This leads to statements like "SS2PL is a special case of CO". My impression is that this has its origins in the cited article by Yoav Raz. In a closed scientific article it might be acceptable to redefine terms as needed - In Wikipedia this is certainly not acceptable. I strongly recommend to use the conventional terminology as it is used in well established standard textbooks (e.g. Weikum/Vossen or Bernstein/Hadzilacos Goodman). JohnTB (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: HIGHLY MISLEADING ARTICLE

message: There is a separate article about Conservative Two-Phase Locking that might be worth mentioning or merging into this one: Conservative two-phase locking 46.183.101.186 (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including Conservative-2PL