Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <22984595.1201612894288.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:21:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "Mayuresh Nirhali (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2592) Wrong description of IndexName field
 in public JavaDoc for LockTable
In-Reply-To: <9182171.1177534395290.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2592?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12563512#action_12563512 ] 

Mayuresh Nirhali commented on DERBY-2592:
-----------------------------------------

Jazarine,

On a quick look at your patch, I see a diff for nbproject/project.xml which is not part of derby code.
So, make sure you submit patch that only contains changes to files which are part of derby codebase. Please submit a new patch with only changes to derby relevant files.

Also, Have you tested the DOC files after your change. Build the doc target, and see the generated HTML page... Mention if any other testing you have done.

> Wrong description of IndexName field in public JavaDoc for LockTable
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2592
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2592
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Javadoc
>    Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
>            Reporter: Olav Sandstaa
>            Assignee: Jazarine Jamal
>            Priority: Trivial
>         Attachments: DERBY-2592.diff
>
>
> The public JavaDoc for LockTable says the following in the description of the INDEXNAME retrieved from SYSCS_DIAG.LOCK_TABLE:
>    INDEXNAME varchar(128) - normally null. If non-null, a lock is held on the index, this can only happen if this is not a user transaction.
> I think the last part is wrong. Normal user transactions might also have a value in the INDEXNAME. For example, here is part of the lock table for three user transactions:
> XID |TYPE |MODE|TABLENAME |LOCKNAME  |STATE|TABLETYPE|INDEXNAME
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 186 |ROW  |X   |T2        |(1,9)     |GRANT|T        |NULL
> 184 |ROW  |S   |T2        |(1,9)     |WAIT |T        |NULL
> 188 |ROW  |X   |T1        |(1,11)    |GRANT|T        |NULL     
> 186 |ROW  |S   |T1        |(1,11)    |WAIT |T        |NULL
> 186 |ROW  |S   |T1        |(1,1)     |GRANT|T        |SQL070425023213370 
> 188 |ROW  |S   |T1        |(1,1)     |GRANT|T        |SQL070425023213370 
> 184 |ROW  |X   |T1        |(1,7)     |GRANT|T        |NULL        
> 188 |ROW  |S   |T1        |(1,7)     |WAIT |T        |NULL   
> Two of the lock entries have an index. I expect this to be the Scan lock that have been set during traversal of the B-tree.
> Proposed fix: remove the last part of the sentence.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.