Concurrency control in distributed databases, as in other distributed systems, is difficult. Can 2PL (two-phase locking) be utilised because there are no duplicates? Explain?

Distributed database management systems face the same concurrency control challenges as other categories of distributed systems. Is it necessary to employ concurrency control mechanisms such as two-phase locking (also known as 2PL) in a configuration with no duplicates? Explain.

This example might be improved by starting with a database maintained by an airline that employs "snapshot isolation." What if, rather of increasing the airline's overall performance, a non-serializable execution did so?

Consider a database used by a large airline that employs snapshot isolation. In what situation can an airline tolerate a non-serializable execution in return for improved overall performance?

How does the Two-Phase Commit (2PC) protocol work in a distributed database system, and what are its limitations?

How do databases manage the "phantom read" problem in concurrency control?

The same concurrency management issues apply to distributed database systems as they do to other distributed systems. Is it necessary to use 2PL (Two-phase locking) concurrency control techniques for a system that does not have any duplicated components? Explain.

Concurrency management is a challenge in distributed database systems, as it is in any distributed system. Is 2PL (two-phase locking) necessary if there are no duplicated fragments? Explain.

Distributed Database Systems face the same concurrency management challenges as any other distributed system. Is it necessary to employ 2PL (two-phase locking) techniques when no fragments are replicated? Explain.

You should definitely start with a database that is run by an airline and makes use of "snapshot isolation" if you want to get the most out of this example. What if the improved overall performance of the airline was caused by a non-serializable execution rather than a serializable execution?