Uploaded image for project: 'MariaDB Server'
  1. MariaDB Server
  2. MDEV-17073

INSERT…ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE became more deadlock-prone

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

      Description

      MySQL 5.7.4 changed the behaviour of INSERT…ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE in the InnoDB storage engine. Upon encountering a duplicate key, it would no longer directly fall back to INSERT, but instead it would proceed to acquire an exclusive lock on every index record for the row on which the UPDATE failed.

      The extra locking was motivated by a public bug report: MySQL Bug#50413 insert on duplicate key update sometimes writes binlog position incorrectly (Oracle internal BUG#11758237). The fix was followed up by a couple of regression fixes. For one user, reverting these changes significantly reduces the deadlock rate of INSERT…ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE.

      There also is a related MySQL Bug #52020 InnoDB can still deadlock on just INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY. One of the factors was that when the pluggable storage engine interface was created in MySQL 5.1, the function innobase_query_is_update() was removed without replacement, and MySQL Bug #7975 (which lacked a test case) was reintroduced.

      In a comment in MySQL Bug #52020 I anticipated that the deadlocks would be caused in a scenario where the INSERT phase fails, then some other transaction locks some of the index records, causing the ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE phase to wait for those locks or to deadlock. Acquiring the locks for all index records already in the INSERT phase would make the UPDATE phase wait-free, but it could cause more conflicts with other accesses, as the hold time of the locks is extended.

      Valerii Kravchuk posted some insightful comments on Bug #52020. I hope he can construct a test case that demonstrates the increased deadlock rate, so that we can see what can be improved here.

      Sven Sandberg suggested in MySQL Bug #50413 that the INSERT phase should have acquired a gap lock, so that conflicting INSERT with that key would be prevented. I assume that he meant the PRIMARY key, because his example involves two unique keys: PRIMARY KEY(a), UNIQUE KEY(b). He also filed MySQL Bug #58637 Mark INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE unsafe when there is more than one key.

      Apparently the nondeterminism that the extra locking is trying to prevent is caused by the ambiguity of the ON DUPLICATE KEY syntax. It does not specify the key! An unambiguous syntax would be something like:

      INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,2,3) ON DUPLICATE KEY(PRIMARY) UPDATE …;
      INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1,2,3) ON DUPLICATE KEY(u) UPDATE …;
      

      Statement-based replication is obviously affected by this ambiguity.
      I hope that Andrei Elkin and Seppo Jaakola can comment on whether row-based replication and parallel forms of replication (including Galera Cluster and MySQL 5.7 group replication) are affected, and how exactly the operations would be logged by the master and applied on the slave.

      Note: Comments in MySQL Bug #50413 suggest that innodb_autoinc_lock_mode settings 0 and 1 are equivalent in this respect. I’d also like to know whether this parameter is at all relevant outside statement-based replication (that is, when innodb_autoinc_lock_mode=2 could be safe to use). With the setting 2, InnoDB does not acquire any auto-increment lock within the transaction. With the settings 0 or 1, InnoDB will hold a lock until the end of the current statement. This would suggest that the setting only matters in statement-based replication.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                marko Marko Mäkelä
                Reporter:
                marko Marko Mäkelä
              • Votes:
                3 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                8 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved: