It isn’t worth it. Mostly financial transactions are done via append only ledgers, not updating; two phase auth and then capture; a settlement process to actually move money, and a reconciliation process to check all the accounts and totals. Even without DB corruptions they have enough problems (fraud and buggy code) with creating money and having to go back and ask people to more money or to give them more money so they have those systems in place any ways.

▲

guenthert 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Mostly financial transactions are done via append only ledgers, not updating;

Well, financial institutions will act as you describe, I presume, but lowly web shops will update 'shopping cart' and 'inventory' using the default settings of whatever DBMS the system came with.

	▲	lanstin 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which is reasonable I guess, except that even with modern hardware, updating the same record in an ACID database has a surprising low capacity in terms of txn / second; if you have some popular item in your inventory (or popular merchant in your 2-sided shopping thing), you'll be forced to create multiple receiving accounts or other ugly stuff if you do the balance based transactionality.

▲

billywhizz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

yes. most folks don't seem to understand this. but, you can get something approaching such guarantees if you are able to limit yourself to something as (seemingly) simple as updating a ledger. this approach is used in a lot of places where high performance and strong consistency is needed (see e.g. LMAX disruptor for similar). https://tigerbeetle.com/