Talk:Strict two-phase locking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is confusing that two-phase locking links to strict, while 2PL to non-strict. I think 2PL should refer to the strict version. -- User:clausen

The statement that 2PL may fix the deadlock situation is (probably) incorrect, since both 2PL and S2PL go through the same growing phase.

[edit] And in English... ?!

What on earth does this all mean? I can't make head nor tail of it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Think there is a syntaxis error

T1: S(A), R(A); T2: S(A), R(A), X(B), R(B), W(B), Commit; T1: X(C), R(C), W(C)... The last C should be a B

and teh same error in the image

sorry my bad english... /javier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.125.52.228 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merge proposal

Please see previous discussion at Talk:Non-strict two-phase locking but reply below. - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:43, 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 01:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment is regarding the article Non-Strict Comps 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the reason for removal was gone with the removal tag:

The name of the article is for the set Complement(S2PL) which does not make a sense for an article. It actually describes the set 2PL-S2PL which does not make sense as an article either. You'll find no articles or book chapters on these sets since it does not make any sense. 2PL needs an article. If putting a deletion tag has violated any Wikipedia regulation please advise. Comps 02:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)