Talk:Serializability

message: Classification changed to B-class and Top-importance. Serializability is the major criterion of correctness for concurrent transactions, and supported in all general purpose databases. It is a long-time, mature database research area. The article provides all the background and essentials regarding Serializability, and well references other relevant articles, categories, and external sources. - Comps (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification changed

message: User 129.241.138.154  has put a cleanup tag without any concrete suggestions.
I shall remove the tag in few days unless this user comes with concrete suggestions for cleanup.
User: Comps May 31 2006
-------------------------------
Clean-up tag removed  Comps 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: Currently the View serializability and Conflict serializability section of this article ends with:
"A more general definition of conflicting operations (also for complex operations, which may consist each of several "simple" read/write operations) requires that they are noncommutative (changing their order also changes their combined result). For example, the operations increment and decrement of a counter are both write operations, but do not need to be considered conflicting since they are commutative."
Is the final sentence correct?  It seems to be assuming that increment and decrement are atomic, but I don't think this can be assumed in general.  My memory is somewhat hazy regarding conflict serialisability though so I haven't changed it. AlyM 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correctness of sentence in View serializability and Conflict serializability 

message: Disambiguation from "Serializable (programming)" may be desirable, since Java and .NET use this term.  Comps 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection from   "Serializable (databases)" has been added. 

message: “Transactional Information Systems” is most likely the most current book on the subject. It is very detailed and thorough. However I was surprised to see the section on Commitment Ordering: It is poor at best. It seems that the authors completely did not understand the original papers, though they cite them in the book. They seem to follow the papers on Strong Recoverability that do not have much more than a definition of the term. Lack of understanding there of what recoverability is is clear. It is suggested the authors read the Wikipedia article on Commitment Ordering. They need to rewrite this section.
"Concurrency control..." of Bernstein et al is a little dated and not completely clean of errors, but almost "classic..."
Both are appropriate references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.195.135.30 (talk • contribs) 23:36, June 14, 2007 (UTC)
* None is perfect...    Comps 12:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the references  

message: Note the list of databases which instead support snapshot isolation as their highest degree of transaction isolation in the Snapshot isolation article.  In some cases, a request for a transaction with a serializable transaction isolation level actually provides a transaction with at the snapshot transaction isolation level.  I think the Serializability article should recognize the absence of support for this feature in many general purpose database systems, and reference the Snapshot isolation article.
Validar (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''all'' general purpose database systems? 

message: Both practitioners and researchers have dealt with global (and distributed) deadlocks in SS2PL based systems for decades. Many research papers have been written about the subject and its resolution, but none (except the Commitment ordering papers) is known to notice the automatic resolution by 2PC. It is unclear how for so long the statistics of implemented special resolution mechanisms, showing no use, or almost no use, have not attracted people's attention to this fact. A case where the automatic solution suffered from long delays and kicked in the dedicated mechanisms may be one explanation. Maybe resolution of a global deadlock by aborts by faster (than 2PC's) local timeouts gave a satisfactory explanation to observers, and a smoke-screen. Any other explanation?  -- Comps (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic global deadlock resolution in SS2PL - Unnoticed for three decades? 

message: for additional discussion relating to Commitment ordering. - JCLately (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See [[Talk:Global serializability#Are the experts experts?]]

message: 05:47, 21 February 2011 Craig Pemberton (talk | contribs) (55,512 bytes) (lead should be clearer and shorter see WP:LEAD) (undo) 
Craig,
The lead should give a fair short summary of the article. If too short it misses its purpose. In your Wiki links (in the tag) 3-4 paragraphs for a >30,000 article is acceptable, so I do not quite see the problem that justifies the tag. Please remove the tag.
This article has been evolved for almost five years. It is within a specialized mathematical area though an effort has been made to use English only rather than Math symbols. I find every word and sentence important, unlike other, non-mathematical texts, where you may have more latitude. It may be improved, but please do not cut text in a way that changes meaning. You ended with changing, e.g.,  to "serializability of a transaction" which does not have any meaning within existing concurrency control, and thus really harms the article. If you are not an expert (and clearly you are not), please do not change meaning (which clearly was not your intention, but you failed). --Comps (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Craig, Pls respond to my comments above. Thanks.   --Comps (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, 3-4 paragraphs for a >30,000 article is acceptable, so I do not quite see the problem that justifies the tag. Tag removed. --Comps (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag - Introduction may be too long 

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 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commitment ordering