Talk:Atomic commit

Merge

Recommend merging this and other SQL transaction statements into a subsection of Database transactions article and redirecting these statements there. Comments? SqlPac 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely No. This is a sufficiently large subject. However the article requires a major rewrite, and merging with atomic commitment which does not exist yet Comps 11:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufficiently large? There are only 6 sentences here. Is this subject really that large that it requires multiple articles to cover it? There are articles on Atomic commit, two-phase and three-phase commit protocol, Commit (data management), rollback (data management), cascading rollback, Atomicity, Atomic operation, Transaction processing. Most of these articles are a couple of paragraphs at most... I think there might be one good article's worth of information spread among all these stubs. SqlPac 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Enough material exists to write about generic atomic commitment. New AC protocols with specific properties have been proposed beyond 2PC, 3PC, etc. This article should be a center and directory for all of them. And we shall see more... Comps 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I also vote strongly against merging this article with Database transactions. Atomic commit is not specific to DBs. It is a generic distributed computing problem, and there are many algorithms that solve it. Databases are just one scenario where an atomic commit must be performed. Jaksa 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well. For example, atomic commits exist in revision control (i. e. not a database transaction). -Anon

I agree with Jaksa but maybe Atomicity and Atomic commit could go under Atomic operation. If so, the link from Comparison_of_revision_control_software to Atomic commit should change also --CoreTechX 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

no