0 votes 0 votes What exactly is to be checked for test for 2PL? is a schedule being SERIALIZABLE sufficent to declare its allowed under 2PL? Markzuck asked Dec 25, 2018 Markzuck 295 views answer comment Share Follow See all 4 Comments See all 4 4 Comments reply Gokulnath commented Dec 25, 2018 reply Follow Share I think if either of the schedules are conflict serialisable, then it should be 2PL because that's the only thing with which we can check here. Since their lock points are not given, I'd go with that approach. 0 votes 0 votes Abhisek Tiwari 4 commented Dec 25, 2018 reply Follow Share we will put locks accordingly and see if no conflict i.e No locks are acquired after lock removal started.(Growing and shrinking phase Rules are followed or not) e,g T1 T2 T1 T2 R(A) S(A) R(A) ===> R(A) W(B) S(A) W(B) R(A) R(C) X(B) W(B) U(B) //As B needed for T1 X(B) W(B) U(B) U(A) S(C) /// i.e in T2 after starting of unlocking there is again Lock acquiring case so it fails 2PL rule i.e seperate Growing and shrinking phase. Rectify me if any. 0 votes 0 votes prashant jha 1 commented Dec 25, 2018 reply Follow Share Every schedule allowed under 2pl is conflict serializable , but every conflict serializable schedule is not allowed under 2PL (not even Basic) , so conflict serializability is superset of 2PL accepted schedules. So you need to manually check by applying locks . 1 votes 1 votes utk0203 commented Dec 25, 2018 reply Follow Share So , 2) is not under 2PL . 0 votes 0 votes Please log in or register to add a comment.