innodb的事务隔离级别是可重复读级别且innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog禁用，也就是说允许next-key lock
实验来自网上. ( 如果你没有演示出来,请check order_id 是否是非unique key.) 如果你看不懂,请看后续文章. next-key lock (glap lock)完全解析.
CREATE TABLE `LockTest` (
`order_id` varchar(20) NOT NULL,
`id` bigint(20) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `idx_order_id` (`order_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=16 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
select * from LockTest;
empty set;
事务1 事务2
begin
delete from LockTest where order_id = 'D20'
begin
delete from LockTest where order_id = 'D19'
insert into LockTest (order_id) values ('D20')
insert into LockTest (order_id) values ('D19')
commit
commit
事务1 执行到insert语句会block住，事务2执行insert语句会提示死锁错误
错误码: 1213
Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction
Execution Time : 00:00:00:000
Transfer Time : 00:00:00:000
Total Time : 00:00:00:000
show engine innodb status 显示死锁信息
------------------------
LATEST DETECTED DEADLOCK
------------------------
2014-04-30 15:01:55 a233b90
*** (1) TRANSACTION:
TRANSACTION 596042, ACTIVE 7 sec inserting
mysql tables in use 1, locked 1
LOCK WAIT 3 lock struct(s), heap size 320, 2 row lock(s), undo log entries 1
MySQL thread id 10851, OS thread handle 0x2abfb90, query id 251521 10.10.53.122 root update
insert into LockTest (order_id) values ('D20')
*** (1) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:
RECORD LOCKS space id 502 page no 4 n bits 72 index `idx_order_id` of table `test`.`LockTest` trx id 596042 lock_mode X insert intention waiting
Record lock, heap no 1 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 1; compact format; info bits 0
0: len 8; hex 73757072656d756d; asc supremum;;
*** (2) TRANSACTION:
TRANSACTION 596041, ACTIVE 19 sec inserting
mysql tables in use 1, locked 1
3 lock struct(s), heap size 320, 2 row lock(s), undo log entries 1
MySQL thread id 10848, OS thread handle 0xa233b90, query id 251522 10.10.53.122 root update
insert into LockTest (order_id) values ('D19')
*** (2) HOLDS THE LOCK(S):
RECORD LOCKS space id 502 page no 4 n bits 72 index `idx_order_id` of table `test`.`LockTest` trx id 596041 lock_mode X
Record lock, heap no 1 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 1; compact format; info bits 0
0: len 8; hex 73757072656d756d; asc supremum;;
*** (2) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED:
RECORD LOCKS space id 502 page no 4 n bits 72 index `idx_order_id` of table `test`.`LockTest` trx id 596041 lock_mode X insert intention waiting
Record lock, heap no 1 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 1; compact format; info bits 0
0: len 8; hex 73757072656d756d; asc supremum;;
*** WE ROLL BACK TRANSACTION (2)
简单分析上面的场景先删除再插入的sql是hibernage保存集合关联的处理方式。delete语句删除不存在且删除的order_id大于现有表中的所有order_id,所以delete语句会使用next-key锁住(当前最大-无穷大)
lock_id lock_trx_id lock_mode lock_type lock_table lock_index lock_space lock_page lock_rec lock_data
596133:502:4:1 596133 X RECORD `test`.`LockTest` idx_order_id 502 4 1 supremum pseudo-record
596134:502:4:1 596134 X RECORD `test`.`LockTest` idx_order_id 502 4 1 supremum pseudo-record
比较奇怪的是为啥两个事务都拿到了相同区间的(当前最大-无穷大)的X锁。不过换成read-commited级别后就没死锁了。
终于在官方文档找到答案, 区间锁只是用来防止其他事务在区间中插入数据，区间x锁 与区间S锁效果是一样的。也就是说不会因为两个事务都用加相同区间锁而相互等待的
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-record-level-locks.html
Gap locks in InnoDB are “purely inhibitive”, which means they only stop other transactions from inserting to the gap. Thus, a gap X-lock has the same effect as a gap S-lock.
当两个事务拿到相同区间锁后，就会阻止对方忘区间内做insert操作。所以第一个事务insert会阻塞,第二个事务会提示死锁
详情见 https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/innodb-record-level-locks.html
换成read-commited级别后就没死锁了! 因为没有了间隙所,读提交不需要幻读控制,也就不需要间隙锁了.
万变归一: 事务内加锁总归是为了隔离级别.
再来分析另外一个现象:
上述现象表明, delete/update会阻塞insert .那么换成先insert,再delete/update呢?
实验表明不会阻塞? 这个感觉挺矛盾的,锁的互斥是相对的. 主要原因是insert 不会产生 间隙锁.
间隙锁的作用本身就是单向的.
再次从事务内加锁原因是为了隔离级别这个角度分析. insert
【解决方案有两种】
1、改变程序中数据库操作的逻辑
2、取消gap lock机制
innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog启用
或者设置为隔离级别为读提交
Gap locking can be disabled explicitly.This occurs if you change the transaction isolation level to READ COMMITTED orenable the innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog system variable.
3. 加上unique锁
select for update / update where
1. 有该行 对非unique列会加 间隙共享锁 和 行锁 见 (14.2.2.4 InnoDB Record, Gap, and Next-Key Locks http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/innodb-record-level-locks.html)
2. 无该行 对非unique 会加间隙共享锁 . 这个文档比较麻烦. 要通过 上面(该文)
(Unexpected deadlock between concurrent INSERTs when unique key violation may occ http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=35821)和
(Deadlock detected on concurrent insert into same table (InnoDB) https://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=43210 )
里面有个很好玩的案例,这两个中文博客里也是该话题 (innodb next-key lock引发的死锁 http://www.cnblogs.com/xhan/p/3701459.html)
---------------------
原文：https://blog.csdn.net/fei33423/article/details/46731891