db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <j...@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 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:50:39 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1343?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Knut Anders Hatlen updated DERBY-1343:
--------------------------------------

    Issue Type: Improvement  (was: Bug)

>From the comments, this sounds more like an improvement than a bug, so I'm reclassifying
the issue.

However, I don't think it's very likely anymore that someone will pick up this issue, given
that it only affects upgrade from 10.0 and 10.1. I propose that we close this issue as "Won't
Fix".

> 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: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1343
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.0.2.0
>            Reporter: Mamta A. Satoor
>
> 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.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message