Talk:Non-strict two-phase locking
Could anyone please explain what X(A), R(A) and W(A) mean?
Mistake: Two-Phase-Locking (2PL) IS NOT non-strict two-phase locking, but rather 2PL properly includes S2PL. Is the name intended for the difference 2PL - S2PL ? Unclear, and for sure not the set 2PL.
Strict-two-phase-locking is the intersection of Strict with Two-phase-locking. Strict-two-phase-locking is practically (mistakenly) used for a proper set of this intersection.
"non-strict two-phase locking" is a very bad choice of name. I have not seen this name in any professional/scientific articls. Needs to be removed.
Redirection from 2PL needs to be cancelled.
The article should be joined with the article on Strict-two-phase-locking and the one on conservative two-phase locking under the title "Two phase locking"
2PL creates serializable schedules. these schedules, however may still contain undesired effects of concurrent transaction execution (e.g. dirty reads) strict 2PL creates serializable schedules which prevent such anomalies.
2PL usually bares the risk of deadlocks! This can be prevented by another specialization of 2PC: preclaiming or "conservative 2PL": This means a transaction receives all its locks at once (either all or none), so that no cyclic wait can arise.
Remove this article -Wrong name[edit]
I agree with previous comments:
1. Wrong name
2. Remove article
2PL needs a separate article, or section in another article.
Comps 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK - merger proposed. Please discuss at Talk:Strict_two-phase_locking#Merge_proposal. If you have sufficient knowledge of the subject, please merge what's good in the text from here into that article, then propose deletion of this one. - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The article contains NO any valuable material. Maybe I used a too polite language. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and should be removed. The proposed merger is REJECTED. 2PL will get a proper article. Please delete or return the deletion tag. Comps 01:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)