mariadb/mysql-test/r/innodb_mysql_lock.result

89 lines
2.5 KiB
Text
Raw Normal View History

#
# Bug #22876 Four-way deadlock
#
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t1;
# Connection 1
set @@autocommit=0;
CREATE TABLE t1(s1 INT UNIQUE) ENGINE=innodb;
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1);
# Connection 2
set @@autocommit=0;
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (2);
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1);
# Connection 3
set @@autocommit=0;
DROP TABLE t1;
# Connection 1
# Connection 1 is now holding the lock.
# Issuing insert from connection 1 while connection 2&3
# is waiting for the lock should give a deadlock error.
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (2);
ERROR 40001: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction
# Cleanup
commit;
Backport of revno: 2617.68.18 Bug #42147 Concurrent DML and LOCK TABLE ... READ for InnoDB table cause warnings in errlog Concurrent execution of LOCK TABLES ... READ statement and DML statements affecting the same InnoDB table on debug builds of MySQL server might lead to "Found lock of type 6 that is write and read locked" warnings appearing in error log. The problem is that the table-level locking code allows a thread to acquire TL_READ_NO_INSERT lock on a table even if there is another thread which holds TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE lock on the same table. At the same time, the locking code assumes that that such locks are incompatible (for example, see check_locks()). This doesn't lead to any problems other than warnings in error log for debug builds of server since for InnoDB tables TL_READ_NO_INSERT type of lock is only used for LOCK TABLES and for this statement InnoDB also performs its own table-level locking. Unfortunately, the table lock compatibility matrix cannot be updated to disallow TL_READ_NO_INSERT when another thread holds TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE without causing starvation of LOCK TABLE READ in InnoDB under high write load. This patch therefore contains no code changes. The issue will be fixed later when LOCK TABLE READ has been updated to not use table locks. This bug will therefore be marked as "To be fixed later". Code comment in thr_lock.c expanded to clarify the issue and a test case based on the bug description added to innodb_mysql_lock.test. Note that a global suppression rule has been added to both MTR v1 and v2 for the "Found lock of type 6 that is write and read locked" warning. These suppression rules must be removed once this bug is properly fixed.
2009-12-09 16:13:00 +01:00
set @@autocommit=1;
commit;
Backport of revno: 2617.68.18 Bug #42147 Concurrent DML and LOCK TABLE ... READ for InnoDB table cause warnings in errlog Concurrent execution of LOCK TABLES ... READ statement and DML statements affecting the same InnoDB table on debug builds of MySQL server might lead to "Found lock of type 6 that is write and read locked" warnings appearing in error log. The problem is that the table-level locking code allows a thread to acquire TL_READ_NO_INSERT lock on a table even if there is another thread which holds TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE lock on the same table. At the same time, the locking code assumes that that such locks are incompatible (for example, see check_locks()). This doesn't lead to any problems other than warnings in error log for debug builds of server since for InnoDB tables TL_READ_NO_INSERT type of lock is only used for LOCK TABLES and for this statement InnoDB also performs its own table-level locking. Unfortunately, the table lock compatibility matrix cannot be updated to disallow TL_READ_NO_INSERT when another thread holds TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE without causing starvation of LOCK TABLE READ in InnoDB under high write load. This patch therefore contains no code changes. The issue will be fixed later when LOCK TABLE READ has been updated to not use table locks. This bug will therefore be marked as "To be fixed later". Code comment in thr_lock.c expanded to clarify the issue and a test case based on the bug description added to innodb_mysql_lock.test. Note that a global suppression rule has been added to both MTR v1 and v2 for the "Found lock of type 6 that is write and read locked" warning. These suppression rules must be removed once this bug is properly fixed.
2009-12-09 16:13:00 +01:00
set @@autocommit=1;
set @@autocommit=1;
#
Implement new type-of-operation-aware metadata locks. Add a wait-for graph based deadlock detector to the MDL subsystem. Fixes bug #46272 "MySQL 5.4.4, new MDL: unnecessary deadlock" and bug #37346 "innodb does not detect deadlock between update and alter table". The first bug manifested itself as an unwarranted abort of a transaction with ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK error by a concurrent ALTER statement, when this transaction tried to repeat use of a table, which it has already used in a similar fashion before ALTER started. The second bug showed up as a deadlock between table-level locks and InnoDB row locks, which was "detected" only after innodb_lock_wait_timeout timeout. A transaction would start using the table and modify a few rows. Then ALTER TABLE would come in, and start copying rows into a temporary table. Eventually it would stumble on the modified records and get blocked on a row lock. The first transaction would try to do more updates, and get blocked on thr_lock.c lock. This situation of circular wait would only get resolved by a timeout. Both these bugs stemmed from inadequate solutions to the problem of deadlocks occurring between different locking subsystems. In the first case we tried to avoid deadlocks between metadata locking and table-level locking subsystems, when upgrading shared metadata lock to exclusive one. Transactions holding the shared lock on the table and waiting for some table-level lock used to be aborted too aggressively. We also allowed ALTER TABLE to start in presence of transactions that modify the subject table. ALTER TABLE acquires TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ lock at start, and that block all writes against the table (naturally, we don't want any writes to be lost when switching the old and the new table). TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ lock, in turn, would block the started transaction on thr_lock.c lock, should they do more updates. This, again, lead to the need to abort such transactions. The second bug occurred simply because we didn't have any mechanism to detect deadlocks between the table-level locks in thr_lock.c and row-level locks in InnoDB, other than innodb_lock_wait_timeout. This patch solves both these problems by moving lock conflicts which are causing these deadlocks into the metadata locking subsystem, thus making it possible to avoid or detect such deadlocks inside MDL. To do this we introduce new type-of-operation-aware metadata locks, which allow MDL subsystem to know not only the fact that transaction has used or is going to use some object but also what kind of operation it has carried out or going to carry out on the object. This, along with the addition of a special kind of upgradable metadata lock, allows ALTER TABLE to wait until all transactions which has updated the table to go away. This solves the second issue. Another special type of upgradable metadata lock is acquired by LOCK TABLE WRITE. This second lock type allows to solve the first issue, since abortion of table-level locks in event of DDL under LOCK TABLES becomes also unnecessary. Below follows the list of incompatible changes introduced by this patch: - From now on, ALTER TABLE and CREATE/DROP TRIGGER SQL (i.e. those statements that acquire TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ lock) wait for all transactions which has *updated* the table to complete. - From now on, LOCK TABLES ... WRITE, REPAIR/OPTIMIZE TABLE (i.e. all statements which acquire TL_WRITE table-level lock) wait for all transaction which *updated or read* from the table to complete. As a consequence, innodb_table_locks=0 option no longer applies to LOCK TABLES ... WRITE. - DROP DATABASE, DROP TABLE, RENAME TABLE no longer abort statements or transactions which use tables being dropped or renamed, and instead wait for these transactions to complete. - Since LOCK TABLES WRITE now takes a special metadata lock, not compatible with with reads or writes against the subject table and transaction-wide, thr_lock.c deadlock avoidance algorithm that used to ensure absence of deadlocks between LOCK TABLES WRITE and other statements is no longer sufficient, even for MyISAM. The wait-for graph based deadlock detector of MDL subsystem may sometimes be necessary and is involved. This may lead to ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK error produced for multi-statement transactions even if these only use MyISAM: session 1: session 2: begin; update t1 ... lock table t2 write, t1 write; -- gets a lock on t2, blocks on t1 update t2 ... (ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK) - Finally, support of LOW_PRIORITY option for LOCK TABLES ... WRITE was abandoned. LOCK TABLE ... LOW_PRIORITY WRITE from now on has the same priority as the usual LOCK TABLE ... WRITE. SELECT HIGH PRIORITY no longer trumps LOCK TABLE ... WRITE in the wait queue. - We do not take upgradable metadata locks on implicitly locked tables. So if one has, say, a view v1 that uses table t1, and issues: LOCK TABLE v1 WRITE; FLUSH TABLE t1; -- (or just 'FLUSH TABLES'), an error is produced. In order to be able to perform DDL on a table under LOCK TABLES, the table must be locked explicitly in the LOCK TABLES list.
2010-02-01 14:43:06 +03:00
# Test for bug #37346 "innodb does not detect deadlock between update
# and alter table".
#
drop table if exists t1;
create table t1 (c1 int primary key, c2 int, c3 int) engine=InnoDB;
insert into t1 values (1,1,0),(2,2,0),(3,3,0),(4,4,0),(5,5,0);
begin;
# Run statement which acquires X-lock on one of table's rows.
update t1 set c3=c3+1 where c2=3;
#
# Switching to connection 'con37346'.
# The below ALTER TABLE statement should wait till transaction
# in connection 'default' is complete and then succeed.
# It should not deadlock or fail with ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK error.
# Sending:
alter table t1 add column c4 int;;
#
# Switching to connection 'default'.
# Wait until the above ALTER TABLE gets blocked because this
# connection holds SW metadata lock on table to be altered.
# The below statement should succeed. It should not
# deadlock or end with ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK error.
update t1 set c3=c3+1 where c2=4;
# Unblock ALTER TABLE by committing transaction.
commit;
#
# Switching to connection 'con37346'.
# Reaping ALTER TABLE.
#
# Switching to connection 'default'.
drop table t1;
#
Backport of revno: 2617.68.18 Bug #42147 Concurrent DML and LOCK TABLE ... READ for InnoDB table cause warnings in errlog Concurrent execution of LOCK TABLES ... READ statement and DML statements affecting the same InnoDB table on debug builds of MySQL server might lead to "Found lock of type 6 that is write and read locked" warnings appearing in error log. The problem is that the table-level locking code allows a thread to acquire TL_READ_NO_INSERT lock on a table even if there is another thread which holds TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE lock on the same table. At the same time, the locking code assumes that that such locks are incompatible (for example, see check_locks()). This doesn't lead to any problems other than warnings in error log for debug builds of server since for InnoDB tables TL_READ_NO_INSERT type of lock is only used for LOCK TABLES and for this statement InnoDB also performs its own table-level locking. Unfortunately, the table lock compatibility matrix cannot be updated to disallow TL_READ_NO_INSERT when another thread holds TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE without causing starvation of LOCK TABLE READ in InnoDB under high write load. This patch therefore contains no code changes. The issue will be fixed later when LOCK TABLE READ has been updated to not use table locks. This bug will therefore be marked as "To be fixed later". Code comment in thr_lock.c expanded to clarify the issue and a test case based on the bug description added to innodb_mysql_lock.test. Note that a global suppression rule has been added to both MTR v1 and v2 for the "Found lock of type 6 that is write and read locked" warning. These suppression rules must be removed once this bug is properly fixed.
2009-12-09 16:13:00 +01:00
# Bug #42147 Concurrent DML and LOCK TABLE ... READ for InnoDB
# table cause warnings in errlog
#
#
# Note that this test for now relies on a global suppression of
# the warning "Found lock of type 6 that is write and read locked"
# This suppression rule can be removed once Bug#42147 is properly
# fixed. See bug page for more info.
#
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t1;
CREATE TABLE t1 (i INT) engine= innodb;
# Connection 2
# Get user-level lock
SELECT get_lock('bug42147_lock', 60);
get_lock('bug42147_lock', 60)
1
# Connection 1
INSERT INTO t1 SELECT get_lock('bug42147_lock', 60);
# Connection 2
LOCK TABLES t1 READ;
SELECT release_lock('bug42147_lock');
release_lock('bug42147_lock')
1
# Connection 1
# Connection 2
UNLOCK TABLES;
# Connection 1
DROP TABLE t1;