Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Nested Transaction Models

  • George KarabatisEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_716


A nested transaction model as proposed by Moss is a generalization of the flat transaction model that allows nesting. A nested transaction forms a tree of transactions with the root being called a top-level transaction and all other nodes called nested transactions (subtransactions). Transactions having no subtransactions are called leaf transactions. Transactions with subtransactions are called parents (ancestors) and their subtransactions are called children (descendants).

A subtransaction can commit or rollback by itself. However, the effects of the commit cannot take place unless the parent transaction also commits. Therefore, in order for any subtransaction to commit, the top-level transaction must commit. If a subtransaction aborts, all its children subtransactions (forming a subtree) are forced to abort even if they committed locally.

Historical Background

Nested transactions were introduced by Moss in 1981 [1] to overcome some of the limitations of the flat...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Moss EB. Nested transactions: an approach to reliable distributed computing. Technical Report. PhD Thesis. UMI Order Number: TR-260: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1981. p. 178.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bjork LA. Recovery scenario for a DB/DC system. In: Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference; 1973. p. 142–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies CT. Recovery semantics for a DB/DC system. In: Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference; 1973. p. 136–41.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davies CT. Data processing spheres of control. IBM Syst J. 1978;17(2):179–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reed DP. Naming and synchronization in a distributed computer system. Technical Report. PhD Thesis, UMI Order Number: TR-205: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1978. p. 181.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray J, Reuter A. Transaction processing: concepts and techniques. 1st ed. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liskov B. Distributed programming in Argus. Commun ACM. 1988;31(3):300–12.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eppinger JL, Mummert LB, Spector AZ. Camelot and Avalon: a distributed transaction facility. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elmagarmid AK. Database transaction models for advanced applications. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weikum G. Principles and realization strategies of multilevel transaction management. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1991;16(1):132–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weikum G, Schek H-J. Multi-level transactions and open nested transactions. Q Bull IEEE TC Data Eng. 1991;14(1):60–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weikum G, Schek HJ. Concepts and applications of multilevel transactions and open nested transactions. In: Database transaction models for advanced applications. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1992. p. 515–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Maryland, Baltimore Country (UMBC)BaltimoreUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Panos K. Chrysanthis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA