db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kathey Marsden (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Updated: (DERBY-1343) It is possible to have duplicate entries in conglomerateId of sysconglomerates before DERBY-655 was fixed in 10.0 or 10.1 databases. It is desirable to patch these databases on upgrade to 10.2 so conglomerateId becomes unique again.
Date Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:05:16 GMT
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1343?page=all ]

Kathey Marsden updated DERBY-1343:
----------------------------------

    Fix Version/s: 10.2.0.0

I am a litle confused by this JIRA. Is it an upgrade requirement for 10.2, e.g. should this
be marked URGENT or is it just a nice to have?  What are the ramifications of not  fixing
 it?  How would users be affected?



> It is possible to have duplicate entries in conglomerateId of sysconglomerates before
DERBY-655 was fixed in 10.0 or 10.1 databases. It is desirable to patch these databases on
upgrade to 10.2 so conglomerateId becomes unique again.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-1343
>                 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1343
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.0.2.0
>            Reporter: Mamta A. Satoor
>             Fix For: 10.2.0.0
>
>
> Because of an optimization implemented in before Derby 10.0 release, it is possible to
have duplicate entries in conglomerateId column. It would be good to patch these entries during
upgrade to 10.2 or later so that conglomerateIds become unique again. See the discussion and
proposed solutions at:
> http://www.nabble.com/-Derby-655-+%3A+getImportedKeys+returns+duplicate+rows+in+some+cases-t1673189.html#a4535887
> When a user defines a constraint, Derby checks to see if it's backing index is a duplicate
of an existing index and if yes, then it shares the same conglomerates for both such indexes.
Code for this is in org.apache.derby.impl.sql.execute.CreateIndexConstantAction.executeConstantAction.
This causes Derby to have duplicate rows in sysconglomerates with same conglomerateid. (More
information on this can be found in thread http://www.nabble.com/-Derby-655-+%3A+getImportedKeys+returns+duplicate+rows+in+some+cases-t1673189.html#a4535887
titled "[DERBY-655] : getImportedKeys returns duplicate rows in some cases".
> During drop constraint, it looks like Derby is not able to identify the correct row in
SYSCONGLOMERATES, if there are duplicate rows with same conglomerateid and as a consequence,
wrong row gets dropped in SYSCONGLOMERATES. More information with an example on this can be
found in thread http://www.nabble.com/When+foreign+key+is+dropped%2C+is+Derby+dropping+the+wrong+row+from+SYS.SYSCONGLOMERATES--t1654121.html#a4481463
titled "When foreign key is dropped, is Derby dropping the wrong row from SYS.SYSCONGLOMERATES?"

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message