db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: Soft Upgrade question
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:55:10 GMT
Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
> Deepa Remesh wrote:
>>On 3/16/06, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
>>>When I run a 10.2 server (built from the mainline) and try to connect to
>>>a 10.1 database, I get the following error:
>>>ERROR XJ040: Failed to start database 'testdb10.1', see the next
>>>exception for details.
>>>ERROR XCW00: Unsupported upgrade from '10.1' to '10.2 beta'.
>>>Does this mean that soft upgrade is not working?
> I find current behavior inconvinient... I am trying to understand why Derby 
> doesn't allow soft-upgrade from previous releases. I have several customers who 
> are waiting to try some of the fixes/improvements we have been making in 10.2 
> ALPHA, but the only way they can try 10.2 Alpha is by recreating their current 
> database schema and export/importing data for every table into 10.2.  

would DdlUtils help them then?



> database schema and export/importing data for every table into 10.2. I see 

> several advantages to allow soft-upgrade only, even to Alpha and Beta releases...
>    1. Increases changes of community testing new 10.2 Alpha release before it
>       becomes GA. We would like to find issues before Alpha release goes GA, but
>       users may find it inconvinient to test Alpha or Beta releases and may
>       choose to wait for GA, unless they really have to.
>    2. Not sure what happens when Derby release is marked *BETA *from *ALPHA*.
>       Would that prevent 10.2 Alpha databases from trying Beta software?
>    3. Soft-upgrade is a great model catch regressions in existing functionality
>       early.
> I can see why Derby doesn't support full upgrade in ALPHA mode... Catalog 
> changes or information saved in catalogs may not be finalized during development 
> and allowing full upgrade would be hard to support many intermediate versions of 
> catalogs. For example, Grant & Revoke work has been adding catalog changes in 
> batches without having to support many intermediate versions. But is there a 
> reason to disable soft-upgrade, with loud and clear warnings about software 
> being *ALPHA *quality and we mean that at the download site?
> Satheesh
>>Upgrades to alpha/beta versions are not supported by default. For
>>testing purposes, we can specify a system property
>>"derby.database.allowPreReleaseUpgrade" to true to allow upgrade to
>>pre-release version. Please take a look at the upgrade tests where
>>this property is used.

View raw message