If you query data and then insert or update related data within
the same transaction, the regular
statement does not give enough protection. Other transactions
can update or delete the same rows you just queried.
InnoDB supports two types of
locking reads that
offer extra safety:
SELECT ... LOCK IN SHARE MODEsets a shared mode lock on any rows that are read. Other sessions can read the rows, but cannot modify them until your transaction commits. If any of these rows were changed by another transaction that has not yet committed, your query waits until that transaction ends and then uses the latest values.
For index records the search encounters,
SELECT ... FOR UPDATElocks the rows and any associated index entries, the same as if you issued an
UPDATEstatement for those rows. Other transactions are blocked from updating those rows, from doing
SELECT ... LOCK IN SHARE MODE, or from reading the data in certain transaction isolation levels. Consistent reads ignore any locks set on the records that exist in the read view. (Old versions of a record cannot be locked; they are reconstructed by applying undo logs on an in-memory copy of the record.)
These clauses are primarily useful when dealing with tree-structured or graph-structured data, either in a single table or split across multiple tables. You traverse edges or tree branches from one place to another, while reserving the right to come back and change any of these “pointer” values.
All locks set by
LOCK IN SHARE MODE and
FOR UPDATE queries are released when the
transaction is committed or rolled back.
Locking of rows for update using
UPDATE only applies when autocommit is disabled
(either by beginning transaction with
TRANSACTION or by setting
autocommit to 0. If
autocommit is enabled, the rows matching the specification are
Suppose that you want to insert a new row into a table
child, and make sure that the child row has a
parent row in table
parent. Your application
code can ensure referential integrity throughout this sequence
First, use a consistent read to query the table
PARENT and verify that the parent row exists.
Can you safely insert the child row to table
CHILD? No, because some other session could
delete the parent row in the moment between your
SELECT and your
without you being aware of it.
To avoid this potential issue, perform the
SELECT * FROM parent WHERE NAME = 'Jones' LOCK IN SHARE MODE;
LOCK IN SHARE MODE query returns
'Jones', you can safely add the
child record to the
CHILD table and commit
the transaction. Any transaction that tries to acquire an
exclusive lock in the applicable row in the
PARENT table waits until you are finished,
that is, until the data in all tables is in a consistent state.
For another example, consider an integer counter field in a
CHILD_CODES, used to assign a unique
identifier to each child added to table
CHILD. Do not use either consistent read or a
shared mode read to read the present value of the counter,
because two users of the database could see the same value for
the counter, and a duplicate-key error occurs if two
transactions attempt to add rows with the same identifier to the
LOCK IN SHARE MODE is not a good
solution because if two users read the counter at the same time,
at least one of them ends up in deadlock when it attempts to
update the counter.
To implement reading and incrementing the counter, first perform
a locking read of the counter using
UPDATE, and then increment the counter. For example:
SELECT counter_field FROM child_codes FOR UPDATE; UPDATE child_codes SET counter_field = counter_field + 1;
The preceding description is merely an example of how
SELECT ... FOR
UPDATE works. In MySQL, the specific task of
generating a unique identifier actually can be accomplished
using only a single access to the table:
UPDATE child_codes SET counter_field = LAST_INSERT_ID(counter_field + 1); SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID();
SELECT statement merely
retrieves the identifier information (specific to the current
connection). It does not access any table.