db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kim Haase (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Reopened] (DERBY-4259) Document database property for determining database format version
Date Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:47:12 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Kim Haase reopened DERBY-4259:
------------------------------


Thanks for catching this, Dag. 

I notice that in the Developer's Guide we talk about a "full upgrade" rather than a "hard
upgrade" (though the opposite is still "soft"). 

I should probably refer to the "upgrade=true attribute" topic, which then refers to the appropriate
section of the Dev Guide.

So a soft upgrade does not change the DataDictionaryVersion, unlike a full upgrade?

I'll file another suggested patch.
                
> Document database property for determining database format version
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-4259
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4259
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Documentation
>    Affects Versions: 10.6.1.0
>            Reporter: Kathey Marsden
>            Assignee: Kim Haase
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 10.10.0.0
>
>         Attachments: DERBY-4259-2.diff, DERBY-4259-2.zip, DERBY-4259-3.diff, DERBY-4259-3.zip,
DERBY-4259.diff, DERBY-4259.stat, DERBY-4259.zip
>
>
> It would be useful  to have a public interface for determining the database format when
running in soft upgrade mode.  In the derby-user thread:
> http://www.nabble.com/Hard-upgrade-failing--td23826558.html#a23835534
> Evan pointed out he was using an undocumented property 'DataDictionaryVersion' for this
purpose, but this is not ideal because it does not conform to the normal derby.* naming convention
 and is not documented.
> Discussion in DERBY-4255 determined that there are not currently DatabaseMetaData methods
that achieve the same result.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message