THEORY: Distributed Transactions and why you should avoid them (2 Phase Commit , Saga Pattern, TCC, Idempotency etc)

avoid-distributed-transactions.md

Distributed Transactions and why you should avoid them

1. Modern technologies won't support it (RabbitMQ, Kafka, etc.);
2. This is a form of using Inter-Process Communication in a synchronized way and this reduces availability;
3. All participants of the distributed transaction need to be avaiable for a distributed commit, again: reduces availability.

Implementing business transactions that span multiple services is not straightforward. Distributed transactions are best avoided because of the CAP theorem. Moreover, many modern (NoSQL) databases don’t support them. The best solution is to use the Saga Pattern.

[...]

One of the most well-known patterns for distributed transactions is called Saga. The first paper about it was published back in 1987 and has it been a popular solution since then.

There are a couple of different ways to implement a saga transaction, but the two most popular are:

• Events/Choreography: When there is no central coordination, each service produces and listen to other service’s events and decides if an action should be taken or not;
• Command/Orchestration: when a coordinator service is responsible for centralizing the saga’s decision making and sequencing business logic;

How Complex Systems Fail

5. Complex systems run in degraded mode.
A corollary to the preceding point is that complex systems run as broken systems. The system continues to function because it contains so many redundancies and because people can make it function, despite the presence of many flaws. [...]

16. Safety is a characteristic of systems and not of their components
Safety is an emergent property of systems; it does not reside in a person, device or department of an organization or system. Safety cannot be purchased or manufactured; it is not a feature that is separate from the other components of the system.

Outbox Pattern - by Unico

• The interesting part is they use Protobuf as a content type when sending events to the broker. Still, for some reason that's unclear in the article, they serialize this Protobuf data into JSON format before persisting it in the outbox table. I guess they do so because they use Debezium under the hood.
• They also use the CloudEvents (v1.0.2) spec for defining the format of event data;

This is the Protobuf message using the CloudEvent spec:

syntax = "proto3";
import "google/protobuf/timestamp.proto";
import "google/protobuf/any.proto";  
message OutboxEvent {
  string specversion = 1;  
  string type = 2;  
  string source = 3;  
  string subject = 4;  
  string id = 5;  
  google.protobuf.Timestamp time = 6;  
  string datacontenttype = 7;  
  string dataschema = 8;  
  google.protobuf.Any data = 9;
}

And this is an example:

{
  "specversion": "1.0",
  "type": "someevent",
  "source": "integration",
  "subject": "1ec07712-79b7-485a-a0e2-0a1c33fd1016",
  "time": "2020-04-30T04:00:00Z",
  "datacontenttype": "application/json",
  "dataschema": "http://<schemapath>",
  "data": {
    "transactionId": "1ec07712-79b7-485a-a0e2-0a1c33fd1016",
    "doc": "123.123.123-00",
    "image_id": "ea02254f-28f4-4b31-99a5-957bb024f78d"
  }
}

Fidelis blog: System Design - Saga Pattern 🇧🇷 - artigo sobre Saga e Outbox Pattern escrito pelo Matheus Fidelis.

Do Caos a Consistência: A Ordem das Mensagens em Sistemas Distribuídos

River's blog: Building an idempotent email API with River unique jobs