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] [Commented] (DERBY-6362) CHECK constraint uses wrong schema for unqualified routine invocations
Date Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:35:51 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13797035#comment-13797035
] 

Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-6362:
-------------------------------------------

I don't think the original compilation schema is stored currently, so we probably cannot get
it for the existing constraints. So for the existing constraints that use unqualified function
names, I think we only have these options on upgrade:

# use the constraint's schema as compilation schema (the constraint will preserve the old
behaviour on upgrade)
# fail (either on upgrade or when the CHECK constraint is evaluated)
# drop ambiguous constraints

I think I prefer option 1.

We also need to decide what to do with new constraint definitions in soft upgrade. Since we
don't have a mechanism to store the compilation schema currently, we probably have to use
the constraint's schema for the constraints defined during soft upgrade. That is, preserve
the old behaviour. In hard upgraded databases we could change ConstraintDescriptor to include
the original compilation schema.

> CHECK constraint uses wrong schema for unqualified routine invocations
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-6362
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6362
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.10.1.1
>            Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
>
> DERBY-3944 fixed the problem with CHECK constraints invoking different routines depending
on who performed the triggering INSERT or UPDATE statement.
> The discussion leading up to DERBY-3944 can be found here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200811.mbox/%3C4919CD4A.5010408@sun.com%3E
> Three alternatives are discussed in the thread:
> A) The schema that holds the CHECK constraint?
> B) The schema that holds the table?
> C) The current schema when the CREATE TABLE statement was issued?
> The conclusion in the thread was that option C was the correct one. However, what was
implemented, was option B.
> I cannot find any information in DERBY-3944 about why option B ended up being chosen,
so I assume that it was unintended.
> Here's an ij script that shows how the CHECK constraint tries to invoke the TO_HEX function
in the schema of the target table (S2) instead of the schema that was the current schema at
the time of CREATE TABLE:
> ij version 10.10
> ij> connect 'jdbc:derby:memory:db;create=true';
> ij> create schema s1;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> create schema s2;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> create function s1.to_hex(i int) returns char(4) language java parameter style
java external name 'java.lang.Integer.toHexString' no sql;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> set schema s1;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> create table s2.t(x int, constraint cc check(to_hex(x) <> '80'));
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> insert into s2.t values 1;
> ERROR 42Y03: 'TO_HEX' is not recognized as a function or procedure. (errorCode = 30000)
> ij> create function s2.to_hex(i int) returns char(4) language java parameter style
java external name 'java.lang.Integer.toHexString' no sql;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> insert into s2.t values 1;
> 1 row inserted/updated/deleted



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Mime
View raw message