> For reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a bank account, you really really want both updates to happen, or neither. This is what atomicity guarantees - that the entire transaction will either succeed or fail as a single unit.

So, I understand why this example feels particularly illustrative of the value of transactions, many-if-not-most financial "transactions" can't practically rely on this kind of atomicity for the kind of financial operation depicted.

While it may seem like a small thing, I think authors would do everyone a favor to stop using the "banking transactions, obvs" example.