db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "A B (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Updated: (DERBY-3299) Uniqueness violation error (23505) occurs after dropping a PK constraint if there exists a foreign key on the same columns.
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:05:10 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3299?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

A B updated DERBY-3299:

    Attachment: d3299_dropSharedConglom_v1.patch

I broke the single _v1 patch down into 4 smaller, relatively modular patches in hopes of making
things easier for any potential reviewers.  The patches are:

 1. d3299_createIxAction_v1.patch: Changes/additions to CreateIndexConstantAction.java so
that it can support the creation of "replacement" conglomerates, which will be necessary when
the physical conglomerate for an index has been dropped but the index descriptor still exists.
 In that case we need to create a new physical conglomerate to support the existing descriptor.
 This can happen if multiple indexes share a physical conglomerate but then the conglomerate
is dropped as part of "drop index" processing for one of the indexes. (Note that "indexes"
here includes indexes which were created to back constraints).

  2. d3299_caUtilMethods_v1.patch: Addition of utility methods to DDLSingleTableConstantAction.java
that can be used by any ConstantAction classes which drop constraint or conglomerate descriptors.
  The methods recognize when a "replacement" conglomerate is needed and make the necessary
calls to create such a conglomerate.  See previous comment for details.

  3. d3299_dropSharedConglom_v1.patch: Changes to ConglomerateDescriptor that include logic
for detecting a "replacement" scenario, and logic to drop the old (shared) conglomerate in
those scenarios.  Also changes the various ConstantAction classes which rely on the "drop()"
methods of ConglomerateDescriptor and ConstraintDescriptor to use the utility methods added
as part of caUtilMethods_v1.patch.  This is the patch which ultimately fixes this issue and
"activates" the preceding two patches--and thus is the only one which changes the functional
behavior of Derby.

  4. d3299_tests_v1.patch: New JUnit tests for verifying the correct behavior when constraints
share a physical conglomerate and then one of them is dropped.

I'm attaching all 4 patches here, but plan to commit them one at a time, a day or two apart,
to allow for any review comments/suggestions.  In the absence of review comments I'll just
go ahead and commit each one in its own time.

As each patch is committed, the subsequent patches may need to be tweaked to allow for minor
conflicts that exist between them.  I will posted updated patches as necessary--but the _v1
patches should at least allow reviewers to see the changes and make comments.

Note to any reviewers: the patches build on each other: i.e. attempts to apply and build patch
#2 will fail unless patch #1 has been applied first.

I ran derbyall with d3288_createIxAction_v1.patch and it ran cleanly; I'm currently running
suites.All.  If the latter passes, then I plan to commit that patch tomorrow (Thursday, Feb
14, PST).

> Uniqueness violation error (23505) occurs after dropping a PK constraint if there exists
a foreign key on the same columns.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DERBY-3299
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3299
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions:,,,,,
>            Reporter: A B
>            Assignee: A B
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: case_2.sql, d3299_caUtilMethods_v1.patch, d3299_createIxAction_v1.patch,
d3299_dropSharedConglom_v1.patch, d3299_tests_v1.patch, d3299_v1.patch
> When there are multiple constraints on a single table and the constraints have the same
set of columns (in the same order), Derby tries to optimize things by re-using a single backing
index for all of the relevant constraints.  See the "executeConstantAction()" method of CreateIndexConstantAction.java
(search for "duplicate").
> But there is a bug in Derby where, if one of the constraints is unique and is dropped,
the uniqueness "attribute" of the backing index is not updated accordingly.  This means that
uniqueness may be incorrectly enforced where it is not required.
> Take the following example ("Case 2" from DERBY-2204):
> For these statements Derby will use a single backing index for both the primary constraint
NEWORDERS_PK and the foreign key constraint NO_O_FK.  That backing index will be unique because
the primary key must itself be unique.
> If later we drop the primary key:
> then the backing index needs to be converted from a unique index to a non-unique index
(because a foreign key is not inherently unique).  But in Derby the uniqueness attribute remains
unchanged, so attempts to insert a duplicate (NO_W_ID, NO_D_ID, NO_O_ID) row into NEWORDERS
will fail with error 23505, when it should really succeed.
> I tried this out on and the same behavior occurs there, so marking "Affects"
versions for everything back to that...

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

View raw message