[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3961?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Matrigali updated DERBY-3961:
----------------------------------
I can't be sure without a test case - just made an informed guess,
but the description and the lock table looked like a duplicat to me.
Obviously the best case would be for the original reporter to either submit his
test case or to run his test
case against 10.5. If it still breaks, please do reopen this issue.
o DERBY-2991 will result in a lock timeout vs. a deadlock, in the btree split
case. This is because the lock
manager does not recognize that the internal transaction for the split and
the parent transaction are the
same thread and thus should be treated as the same waiter for purpose of
deadlock detection. So what
happens is that no deadlock is detected where there is one, so the threads
hang around until they reach
lock timeout.
o All row locks of the form (N, 1) will no longer be requested in 10.5 after
the fix for DERBY-2991, so if one sees
a missed deadlock in versions previous to 10.5 where these are part of the
deadlock cycle they should be
fixed by DERBY-2991.
> Deadlock detection fails for InternalTransaction
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3961
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3961
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 10.4.2.0
> Environment: Windows Vista
> Reporter: Jeff Stuckman
> Fix For: 10.5.1.2
>
>
> It is easy to cause a deadlock which is not detected by the deadlock
> detection algorithm. The transactions fail due to a lock timeout , possibly
> because a transaction of type InternalTransaction is part of the cycle.
> Resolving issue DERBY-2991 will make it more difficult to cause such
> deadlocks, but it will still be possible.
> My test case creates two threads and executes the following statements until
> they deadlock against each other:
> UPDATE urls SET jobflag=? WHERE urlid=?
> SELECT urlid,url,expectation FROM urls WHERE site=?
> The test eventually deadlocks with the following transaction and lock table
> contents:
> XID TYPE MODE TABLENAME LOCKNAME STATE TABLETYPE LOCKCOUNT INDEXNAME
> 2217109 ROW S URLS (13,1) GRANT T 1 FINDURLBYSITEANDJOB
> 2217114 ROW X URLS (13,1) WAIT T 0 FINDURLBYSITEANDJOB
> 2217113 ROW S URLS (15,1) GRANT T 1 FINDURLBYSITEANDJOB
> 2217113 ROW X URLS (3,132) GRANT T 3 null
> 2217109 ROW S URLS (3,132) WAIT T 0 null
> 2217109 TABLE IS URLS Tablelock GRANT T 2 null
> 2217113 TABLE IX URLS Tablelock GRANT T 4 null
> 2217114 TABLE IX URLS Tablelock GRANT T 1 null
> 2217113 ROW S URLS (6,1) GRANT T 1 SQL081111021116970
> XID GLOBAL_XID USERNAME TYPE STATUS FIRST_INSTANT
> SQL_TEXT
> 2217115 null APP UserTransaction IDLE null select * from
> SYSCS_DIAG.TRANSACTION_TABLE
> 2217114 null APP InternalTransaction ACTIVE null UPDATE urls
> SET jobflag=? WHERE urlid=?
> 2217113 null APP UserTransaction ACTIVE (526,52925) UPDATE
> urls SET jobflag=? WHERE urlid=?
> 2069160 null null SystemTransaction IDLE null null
> 2217109 null APP UserTransaction ACTIVE null SELECT
> urlid,url,expectation FROM urls WHERE site=?
> Here is what I think is happening:
> 1. The SELECT statement begins to execute and the cursor is stepping through
> the result set. The results are derived from index FINDURLBYSITEANDJOB as
> expected.
> 2. The UPDATE statement begins to execute. The row to be updated is the row
> immediately after the SELECT statement's cursor. The row is locked and
> updated.
> 3. The UPDATE statement must perform index maintenance (tree rebalancing or
> similar?). This apparently causes an InternalTransaction to be created. It
> then must lock the row that the SELECT statement's cursor is currently
> occupying. It cannot do this, so the transaction waits.
> 4. The SELECT statement is ready to advance the cursor. However, it cannot
> advance the cursor because the UPDATE statement has locked the next row. The
> transaction waits.
> The result: Transaction 2217113 waits for the "nested transaction" 2217114 to
> complete. 2217114 waits for 2217109 to release its lock. 2217109 waits for
> 2217113 to release its lock. We have a cycle and a deadlock. The transactions
> time out with "A lock could not be obtained within the time requested",
> apparently because the dependency between transactions 2217113 and 2217114 is
> not detected.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
