db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Waagan <kristian.waa...@oracle.com>
Subject Purpose of OSReadOnlyTest (DERBY-3837)
Date Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:07:34 GMT
  Hi,

When Lily tested my prototype for the automatic index statistics 
feature, she got errors in OSReadOnlyTest. I didn't, and since the 
failures came when trying to delete files on Windows I immediately 
suspected open file handles. After having investigated enough to be 
confident that my resource management (i.e. closing transactions, 
conglomerates etc) wasn't the culprit, I ended up studying the cache 
management. It turned out that the container cache failed to properly 
shut down.

When writing out a dirty container, a NonWritableChannelException was 
thrown. This was indeed written into derby.log, but I failed to spot it 
amongst the other stack traces (db not found, db shutdown, insert failed 
etc). The exception isn't handled down in store, and it bubbles all the 
way up into ContextManager. For reasons I don't fully know, it is logged 
but it isn't severe enough to replace the database shutdown exception.

So, when this exception is thrown, the cleaning of the container cache 
(and the shutdown) is aborted - resulting in open file handles. But why 
does this happen in a database that is supposed to be read-only? What 
made the container, but not any pages, dirty?
The answer is FileContainer.setEstimatedRowCount, which my prototype 
indeed calls. But this can be called due to other actions as well, for 
instance table scans. However, it has code to avoid setting the dirty 
flag when the database is read-only. Further investigation revealed that 
while the files in the database directory are made read-only, 
directories aren't. This fools Derby to believe that the media is 
read-write, since it is able to write the database lock file.

Since the comment in DERBY-3837 says the purpose of the test is to test 
operation on read-only media, do you agree that we should make the 
database directory truly read-only?

Doing that will require some modifications to the test, but nothing 
major. For instance, the exception thrown when trying to insert data 
will change.
And while I'm at it, I might want to move some of the file-system helper 
methods into PrivilegedFileOpsForTests. The motivating factor is that 
when a removal of a directory fails (recursive delete), it may be useful 
to see which files couldn't be deleted. The question is if it is okay to 
add a public static persistent recursive delete method running in a 
privileged block to the test code?


-- 
Kristian

Mime
View raw message