diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'mysql-test/r/innodb_mysql_lock2.result')
| -rw-r--r-- | mysql-test/r/innodb_mysql_lock2.result | 601 |
1 files changed, 601 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/mysql-test/r/innodb_mysql_lock2.result b/mysql-test/r/innodb_mysql_lock2.result new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..79606ea8bdc --- /dev/null +++ b/mysql-test/r/innodb_mysql_lock2.result @@ -0,0 +1,601 @@ +# +# Test how do we handle locking in various cases when +# we read data from InnoDB tables. +# +# In fact by performing this test we check two things: +# 1) That SQL-layer correctly determine type of thr_lock.c +# lock to be acquired/passed to InnoDB engine. +# 2) That InnoDB engine correctly interprets this lock +# type and takes necessary row locks or does not +# take them if they are not necessary. +# +# This test makes sense only in REPEATABLE-READ mode as +# in SERIALIZABLE mode all statements that read data take +# shared lock on them to enforce its semantics. +select @@session.tx_isolation; +@@session.tx_isolation +REPEATABLE-READ +# Prepare playground by creating tables, views, +# routines and triggers used in tests. +drop table if exists t0, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, te; +drop view if exists v1, v2; +drop procedure if exists p1; +drop procedure if exists p2; +drop function if exists f1; +drop function if exists f2; +drop function if exists f3; +drop function if exists f4; +drop function if exists f5; +drop function if exists f6; +drop function if exists f7; +drop function if exists f8; +drop function if exists f9; +drop function if exists f10; +drop function if exists f11; +drop function if exists f12; +drop function if exists f13; +drop function if exists f14; +drop function if exists f15; +create table t1 (i int primary key) engine=innodb; +insert into t1 values (1), (2), (3), (4), (5); +create table t2 (j int primary key) engine=innodb; +insert into t2 values (1), (2), (3), (4), (5); +create table t3 (k int primary key) engine=innodb; +insert into t3 values (1), (2), (3); +create table t4 (l int primary key) engine=innodb; +insert into t4 values (1); +create table t5 (l int primary key) engine=innodb; +insert into t5 values (1); +create table te(e int primary key); +insert into te values (1); +create view v1 as select i from t1; +create view v2 as select j from t2 where j in (select i from t1); +create procedure p1(k int) insert into t2 values (k); +create function f1() returns int +begin +declare j int; +select i from t1 where i = 1 into j; +return j; +end| +create function f2() returns int +begin +declare k int; +select i from t1 where i = 1 into k; +insert into t2 values (k + 5); +return 0; +end| +create function f3() returns int +begin +return (select i from t1 where i = 3); +end| +create function f4() returns int +begin +if (select i from t1 where i = 3) then +return 1; +else +return 0; +end if; +end| +create function f5() returns int +begin +insert into t2 values ((select i from t1 where i = 1) + 5); +return 0; +end| +create function f6() returns int +begin +declare k int; +select i from v1 where i = 1 into k; +return k; +end| +create function f7() returns int +begin +declare k int; +select j from v2 where j = 1 into k; +return k; +end| +create function f8() returns int +begin +declare k int; +select i from v1 where i = 1 into k; +insert into t2 values (k+5); +return k; +end| +create function f9() returns int +begin +update v2 set j=j+10 where j=1; +return 1; +end| +create function f10() returns int +begin +return f1(); +end| +create function f11() returns int +begin +declare k int; +set k= f1(); +insert into t2 values (k+5); +return k; +end| +create function f12(p int) returns int +begin +insert into t2 values (p); +return p; +end| +create function f13(p int) returns int +begin +return p; +end| +create procedure p2(inout p int) +begin +select i from t1 where i = 1 into p; +end| +create function f14() returns int +begin +declare k int; +call p2(k); +insert into t2 values (k+5); +return k; +end| +create function f15() returns int +begin +declare k int; +call p2(k); +return k; +end| +create trigger t4_bi before insert on t4 for each row +begin +declare k int; +select i from t1 where i=1 into k; +set new.l= k+1; +end| +create trigger t4_bu before update on t4 for each row +begin +if (select i from t1 where i=1) then +set new.l= 2; +end if; +end| +# Trigger below uses insertion of duplicate key in 'te' +# table as a way to abort delete operation. +create trigger t4_bd before delete on t4 for each row +begin +if !(select i from v1 where i=1) then +insert into te values (1); +end if; +end| +create trigger t5_bi before insert on t5 for each row +begin +set new.l= f1()+1; +end| +create trigger t5_bu before update on t5 for each row +begin +declare j int; +call p2(j); +set new.l= j + 1; +end| +# +# Set common variables to be used by scripts called below. +# +# +# 1. Statements that read tables and do not use subqueries. +# +# +# 1.1 Simple SELECT statement. +# +# No locks are necessary as this statement won't be written +# to the binary log and InnoDB supports snapshots. +Success: 'select * from t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 1.2 Multi-UPDATE statement. +# +# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as this +# statement will be written to the binary log and therefore should +# be serialized with concurrent statements. +Success: 'update t2, t1 set j= j - 1 where i = j' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 1.3 Multi-DELETE statement. +# +# The above is true for this statement as well. +Success: 'delete t2 from t1, t2 where i = j' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 1.4 DESCRIBE statement. +# +# This statement does not really read data from the +# target table and thus does not take any lock on it. +# We check this for completeness of coverage. +Success: 'describe t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 1.5 SHOW statements. +# +# The above is true for SHOW statements as well. +Success: 'show create table t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'show keys from t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2. Statements which read tables through subqueries. +# +# +# 2.1 CALL with a subquery. +# +# A strong lock is not necessary as this statement is not +# written to the binary log as a whole (it is written +# statement-by-statement) and thanks to MVCC we can always get +# versions of rows prior to the update that has locked them. +# But in practice InnoDB does locking reads for all statements +# other than SELECT (unless it is a READ-COMITTED mode or +# innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog is ON). +Success: 'call p1((select i + 5 from t1 where i = 1))' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.2 CREATE TABLE with a subquery. +# +# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as +# this statement is written to the binary log and therefore +# should be serialized with concurrent statements. +Success: 'create table t0 engine=innodb select * from t1' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +drop table t0; +Success: 'create table t0 engine=innodb select j from t2 where j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +drop table t0; +# +# 2.3 DELETE with a subquery. +# +# The above is true for this statement as well. +Success: 'delete from t2 where j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.4 MULTI-DELETE with a subquery. +# +# Same is true for this statement as well. +Success: 'delete t2 from t3, t2 where k = j and j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.5 DO with a subquery. +# +# In theory should not take row locks as it is not logged. +# In practice InnoDB takes shared row locks. +Success: 'do (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.6 INSERT with a subquery. +# +# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as +# this statement is written to the binary log and therefore +# should be serialized with concurrent statements. +Success: 'insert into t2 select i+5 from t1' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'insert into t2 values ((select i+5 from t1 where i = 4))' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.7 LOAD DATA with a subquery. +# +# The above is true for this statement as well. +Success: 'load data infile '../../std_data/rpl_loaddata.dat' into table t2 (@a, @b) set j= @b + (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.8 REPLACE with a subquery. +# +# Same is true for this statement as well. +Success: 'replace into t2 select i+5 from t1' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'replace into t2 values ((select i+5 from t1 where i = 4))' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.9 SELECT with a subquery. +# +# Locks are not necessary as this statement is not written +# to the binary log and thanks to MVCC we can always get +# versions of rows prior to the update that has locked them. +# +# Also serves as a test case for bug #46947 "Embedded SELECT +# without FOR UPDATE is causing a lock". +Success: 'select * from t2 where j in (select i from t1)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.10 SET with a subquery. +# +# In theory should not require locking as it is not written +# to the binary log. In practice InnoDB acquires shared row +# locks. +Success: 'set @a:= (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.11 SHOW with a subquery. +# +# Similarly to the previous case, in theory should not require locking +# as it is not written to the binary log. In practice InnoDB +# acquires shared row locks. +Success: 'show tables from test where Tables_in_test = 't2' and (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'show columns from t2 where (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.12 UPDATE with a subquery. +# +# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as +# this statement is written to the binary log and therefore +# should be serialized with concurrent statements. +Success: 'update t2 set j= j-10 where j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 2.13 MULTI-UPDATE with a subquery. +# +# Same is true for this statement as well. +Success: 'update t2, t3 set j= j -10 where j=k and j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 3. Statements which read tables through a view. +# +# +# 3.1 SELECT statement which uses some table through a view. +# +# Since this statement is not written to the binary log +# and old version of rows are accessible thanks to MVCC, +# no locking is necessary. +Success: 'select * from v1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'select * from v2' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'select * from t2 where j in (select i from v1)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'select * from t3 where k in (select j from v2)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 3.2 Statements which modify a table and use views. +# +# Since such statements are going to be written to the binary +# log they need to be serialized against concurrent statements +# and therefore should take shared row locks on data read. +Success: 'update t2 set j= j-10 where j in (select i from v1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'update t3 set k= k-10 where k in (select j from v2)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'update t2, v1 set j= j-10 where j = i' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'update v2 set j= j-10 where j = 3' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4. Statements which read tables through stored functions. +# +# +# 4.1 SELECT/SET with a stored function which does not +# modify data and uses SELECT in its turn. +# +# Calls to such functions won't get into the binary log and +# thus don't need to acquire strong locks. +# In 5.5 due to fix for bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs +# used stored functions may lead to broken SBR" strong locks +# are taken (we accepted it as a trade-off for this fix). +Success: 'select f1()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'set @a:= f1()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.2 INSERT (or other statement which modifies data) with +# a stored function which does not modify data and uses +# SELECT. +# +# Since such statement is written to the binary log it should +# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data +# it uses. Therefore it should take row locks on the data +# it reads. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'insert into t2 values (f1() + 5)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.3 SELECT/SET with a stored function which +# reads and modifies data. +# +# Since a call to such function is written to the binary log, +# it should be serialized with concurrent statements affecting +# the data it uses. Hence, row locks on the data read +# should be taken. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'select f2()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'set @a:= f2()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.4. SELECT/SET with a stored function which does not +# modify data and reads a table through subselect +# in a control construct. +# +# Again, in theory a call to this function won't get to the +# binary log and thus no locking is needed. But in practice +# we don't detect this fact early enough (get_lock_type_for_table()) +# to avoid taking row locks. +Success: 'select f3()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'set @a:= f3()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'select f4()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'set @a:= f4()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.5. INSERT (or other statement which modifies data) with +# a stored function which does not modify data and reads +# the table through a subselect in one of its control +# constructs. +# +# Since such statement is written to the binary log it should +# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting data it +# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on the data +# it reads. +Success: 'insert into t2 values (f3() + 5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'insert into t2 values (f4() + 6)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.6 SELECT/SET which uses a stored function with +# DML which reads a table via a subquery. +# +# Since call to such function is written to the binary log +# it should be serialized with concurrent statements. +# Hence reads should take row locks. +Success: 'select f5()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'set @a:= f5()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.7 SELECT/SET which uses a stored function which +# doesn't modify data and reads tables through +# a view. +# +# Once again, in theory, calls to such functions won't +# get into the binary log and thus don't need row +# locks. In practice this fact is discovered +# too late to have any effect. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken +# in case of simple SELECT. +Success: 'select f6()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'set @a:= f6()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'select f7()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'set @a:= f7()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.8 INSERT which uses stored function which +# doesn't modify data and reads a table +# through a view. +# +# Since such statement is written to the binary log and +# should be serialized with concurrent statements affecting +# the data it uses. Therefore it should take row locks on +# the rows it reads. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken +# in case of simple SELECT. +Success: 'insert into t3 values (f6() + 5)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'insert into t3 values (f7() + 5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.9 SELECT which uses a stored function which +# modifies data and reads tables through a view. +# +# Since a call to such function is written to the binary log +# it should be serialized with concurrent statements. +# Hence, reads should take row locks. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken +# in case of simple SELECT. +Success: 'select f8()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +Success: 'select f9()' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.10 SELECT which uses stored function which doesn't modify +# data and reads a table indirectly, by calling another +# function. +# +# Calls to such functions won't get into the binary log and +# thus don't need to acquire strong locks. +# In 5.5 due to fix for bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs +# used stored functions may lead to broken SBR" strong locks +# are taken (we accepted it as a trade-off for this fix). +Success: 'select f10()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.11 INSERT which uses a stored function which doesn't modify +# data and reads a table indirectly, by calling another +# function. +# +# Since such statement is written to the binary log, it should +# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data it +# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on data it reads. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'insert into t2 values (f10() + 5)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.12 SELECT which uses a stored function which modifies +# data and reads a table indirectly, by calling another +# function. +# +# Since a call to such function is written to the binary log +# it should be serialized from concurrent statements. +# Hence, reads should take row locks. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'select f11()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.13 SELECT that reads a table through a subquery passed +# as a parameter to a stored function which modifies +# data. +# +# Even though a call to this function is written to the +# binary log, values of its parameters are written as literals. +# So there is no need to acquire row locks on rows used in +# the subquery. +# But due to the fact that in 5.1 for prelocked statements +# THD::in_lock_tables is set to TRUE we acquire strong locks +# (see also bug#44613 "SELECT statement inside FUNCTION takes +# a shared lock" [sic!!!]). +Success: 'select f12((select i+10 from t1 where i=1))' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 4.14 INSERT that reads a table via a subquery passed +# as a parameter to a stored function which doesn't +# modify data. +# +# Since this statement is written to the binary log it should +# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data it +# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on the data it reads. +Success: 'insert into t2 values (f13((select i+10 from t1 where i=1)))' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 5. Statements that read tables through stored procedures. +# +# +# 5.1 CALL statement which reads a table via SELECT. +# +# Since neither this statement nor its components are +# written to the binary log, there is no need to take +# row locks on the data it reads. +Success: 'call p2(@a)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 5.2 Function that modifies data and uses CALL, +# which reads a table through SELECT. +# +# Since a call to such function is written to the binary +# log, it should be serialized with concurrent statements. +# Hence, in this case reads should take row locks on data. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'select f14()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 5.3 SELECT that calls a function that doesn't modify data and +# uses a CALL statement that reads a table via SELECT. +# +# Calls to such functions won't get into the binary log and +# thus don't need to acquire strong locks. +# In 5.5 due to fix for bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs +# used stored functions may lead to broken SBR" strong locks +# are taken (we accepted it as a trade-off for this fix). +Success: 'select f15()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 5.4 INSERT which calls function which doesn't modify data and +# uses CALL statement which reads table through SELECT. +# +# Since such statement is written to the binary log it should +# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting data it +# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on data it reads. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'insert into t2 values (f15()+5)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 6. Statements that use triggers. +# +# +# 6.1 Statement invoking a trigger that reads table via SELECT. +# +# Since this statement is written to the binary log it should +# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data +# it uses. Therefore, it should take row locks on the data +# it reads. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'insert into t4 values (2)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 6.2 Statement invoking a trigger that reads table through +# a subquery in a control construct. +# +# The above is true for this statement as well. +Success: 'update t4 set l= 2 where l = 1' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 6.3 Statement invoking a trigger that reads a table through +# a view. +# +# And for this statement. +Success: 'delete from t4 where l = 1' takes shared row locks on 't1'. +# +# 6.4 Statement invoking a trigger that reads a table through +# a stored function. +# +# And for this statement. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'insert into t5 values (2)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# +# 6.5 Statement invoking a trigger that reads a table through +# stored procedure. +# +# And for this statement. +# But due to bug #53921 "Wrong locks for SELECTs used stored +# functions may lead to broken SBR" no lock is taken. +Success: 'update t5 set l= 2 where l = 1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'. +# Clean-up. +drop function f1; +drop function f2; +drop function f3; +drop function f4; +drop function f5; +drop function f6; +drop function f7; +drop function f8; +drop function f9; +drop function f10; +drop function f11; +drop function f12; +drop function f13; +drop function f14; +drop function f15; +drop view v1, v2; +drop procedure p1; +drop procedure p2; +drop table t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, te; |