db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: regarding semantics of select in Autocommit mode .. ( and derby 265)
Date Mon, 23 May 2005 17:34:27 GMT
I think your description below is valid.  Blob's are not valid after the
transaction that opened them commits.  Doing interleaved result sets in
autocommit mode is almost always a bug waiting to happen.  "Held"
cursors help some, but still after the commit you must do a next - the
current blob is not valid.

A NPE is not a good error, but if possible I would like to see the
catch of the error condition pushed as high up in the code as possible.
Is it possible for the jdbc getBlob() call to recognize that the
transaction of the blob has closed?  If not then maybe at least the
catch can be placed in the blob datatype itself, it may just have to
check every time it accesses store to get the next piece of the blob -
or better performing would be to assume the point is good and have
a try/catch to catch the error and turn it into a more reasonable
user level error.

Sunitha Kambhampati wrote:
> I am actually looking at Derby 265 (an assert failure in store).  The 
> assert failure occurs on a getBlob call which is because at that time 
> there is no transaction context.  But then, looking at the repro got me 
> thinking about select stmt in autocommit mode and also wonder if the 
> repro is testing the right behavior or not..
> Section 10.1 of the JDBC 3.0 spec says
> Enabling autocommit,  causes the jdbc driver to do a transaction commit 
> after each individual sql statement as soon as it is complete.  the 
> point at which it is complete depends on type of statement.  for select 
> statement  :- statement is complete when resultset is closed and result 
> set is closed* as soon as one* of the following happens
>   -- all rows have been retrieved
>  -- associated statement object is re-executed
>  -- another Statement object is executed on the same connection
> from repro in  Derby-265 :
> Note s, s2 are on the same connection object that is in  autocommit mode
> 1    s.execute("select * from maps")
> 2    rs1 = s.getResultSet();
> 3    s2.execute("select * from maps")        4    rs2 = 
> s2.getResultSet();                    5    rs2.next();
> 6    rs2.getBlob(6);
> 7    rs1.close();
> 8    rs2.next();
> 9    rs2.getBlob(6);           __________________
> -- from the spec (10.1) , does it mean that the statement execution on 
> line 3 would commit the earlier statement on #1.   ? If so, we dont seem 
> to do that.
> -- Also, rs1.close() is internally calling a commit but the connection 
> is actually dealing with s2 currently and  so is it right that 
> rs1.close() commits the transaction associated with s2 ?   Then again, 
> is this interleaving of reading of resultsets and select statement even 
> valid ? . I checked the jdbc spec and the api and also briefly the 
> tutorial book but didnt come across much about this. .
> Coming back to the reason for the assert failure
> -- so rs1.close() is committing the transaction which is why 
> rs2.getBlob(6) is left without a transaction context leading to the 
> assert failure.
> A simpler snippet for just the assert failure case (s ,s1 on one 
> connection in autocommit mode).
> 1    s.execute("select * from maps'");
> 2    rs = s.getResultSet();
> 3    s1.executeUpdate("insert ....  ");
> 4    rs.next();
> 5    rs.getBlob(6);
> -- when s1 is executed , s is complete ( and committed ) per spec.  Will 
> rs still be valid at (line 4), I guess that depends on the holdability.  
> As rs is a hold cursor, what transaction context should this be in  ?
> -- The assert failure happens on the getBlob call ( line 5) , which is 
> because the blob has an underlying outputstream and uses a transaction 
> context in this case.
> The jdbc api for Blob says ' A blob object_ is valid for the duration* 
> *of the transaction in which* *it was created_*'*.  From this it seems 
> like the call on #5  is actually not valid ( since the transaction in 
> which the blob was created is complete).
> -- All this makes me think that the program is incorrect.  But I guess  
> we should be throwing  a  better user error instead of an npe/assert.
> ___________________
> Also some notes on derby 265.
> -- repro violated this part of the jdbc api for Statement
> "By default, only one |ResultSet| object per |Statement| object can be 
> open at the same time. Therefore, if the reading of one |ResultSet| 
> object is interleaved with the reading of another, each must have been 
> generated by *different |Statement| objects*. All execution methods in 
> the |Statement| interface implicitly close a statment's current 
> |ResultSet| object if an open one exists"
> So  made changes to use different Statement objects.
> -- The derby 265 assert failure cause  is not specific to network server 
> mode as such. In the original repro, getBlob()  was not being called in 
> the program which is why embedded was not throwing the error,  but for 
> network server a rs2.next() actually retrieves the blob (getBlob()) 
> which causes the assert to be thrown at the store level.  So changing 
> the program to call rs2.getBlob shows up the error in embedded mode also.
> -- Note, the assert failure happens only if the blob column overflows
> I'd appreciate any comments/feedback.
> Thanks,
> Sunitha.

View raw message