Skip to content

Have You Deliberately Decided Whether You Need Distributed Transactions?

Type: DeepDive
Category: Async
Audience: Engineers dealing with microservices, cross-DB workflows, or async state

🔍 First, the Meta-Question

Distributed transactions aren’t always needed.
But they always need to be considered.

If you skipped the question,
you’ve made a decision—just not consciously.

  • Will the system be OK if two updates succeed, and the third fails?
  • Is eventual consistency acceptable here?
  • Who detects and repairs drifted state?
  • What’s the user experience in partial success cases?

⚠️ When It Goes Wrong

  • Partial updates that look fine… until a user clicks “export”
  • Async retries that reapply incomplete state
  • Background jobs cleaning up state that was never finalized
  • System tests that don’t simulate failure modes

âś… Healthier Patterns

  • Explicit modeling of consistency boundaries
  • Choose per-case: local txn / saga / outbox / retry-compensate
  • Store enough metadata to debug failure reconstruction
  • Document what it means for consistency to “eventually” happen

🧠 Core Philosophy

You’re not designing for “no failures.”
You’re designing for who pays the cost of failure—and when.

âť“ FAQ

  • Q: Isn’t this infra stuff?
    A: Only if your domain doesn’t care about truth.

  • Q: But we don’t need 2PC, right?
    A: Probably not. But have you designed around its absence?