db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kristian Waagan (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-4214) Inconsistent metadata for CLOBGETSUBSTRING, depending on your upgrade trajectory
Date Thu, 07 May 2009 15:07:30 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4214?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12706932#action_12706932

Kristian Waagan commented on DERBY-4214:

Kathey wrote:
So then upon reverting to 10.5.1 will the Client send too many bytes for the stored procedure
and thus the JDBC call fail? If that's the case, I think option A is not an option.
It is the other way around - the client asks for a number of bytes, the server has a limit
for how many it can/will send in one go. It is this limit on the server side we are talking
about. The client will keep invoking the procedure until it has received the requested number
of bytes.
Derby shouldn't fail. If anything, only performance will be affected.

> Inconsistent metadata for CLOBGETSUBSTRING, depending on your upgrade trajectory
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DERBY-4214
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4214
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions:,,,
>            Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> The on-disk signature of CLOBGETSUBSTRING changed as a result of the work done on DERBY-3769.
Previously, the return type of that function was VARCHAR(32672). The return type changed to
VARCHAR(10890) with revision 707097, which made it into release That change was
also backported to the 10.4 branch at 711548. However, no upgrade logic was written to support
this metadata change. As a result, we have two discrepancies with our upgrade policy:
> 1) If you upgrade a database to, the signature of CLOBGETSUBSTRING will not
be the signature which you would see in a freshly created database. Presumably this
means that the problem addressed by DERBY-3769 is not solved in upgraded databases.
> 2) If we create another release on the 10.4 branch, then we will have a change in on-disk
metadata introduced by a bug-fix release.
> I see two solutions:
> A) Add metadata upgrade logic to the 10.4 and 10.5 branches so that DERBY-3769 will be
fixed in upgraded databases as well as freshly created databases. This will violate our policy
of not changing on-disk metadata in maintenance releases.
> B) Correct the metadata in the hard-upgrade logic of 10.6. We may want to revert the
10.4 backport.
> In any event, we may also want to re-open DERBY-3769 to indicate that the bug is not
fixed in hard-upgraded databases but only in freshly created databases.
> What are people's thoughts about how to address this discrepancy?

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

View raw message