602 lines
21 KiB
Plaintext
602 lines
21 KiB
Plaintext
#
|
|
# 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;
|