db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hat...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Copying an idle derby database that is currently open
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:49:01 GMT
On 04/ 9/10 06:40 AM, David Sitsky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I know this scenario is not recommended, but a couple of our customers
> had accidentally copied some Derby databases which were still opened
> by a program, however they claim the program had been idle for quite
> some time, so there should not have been any active transactions.
>
> I am curious to understand if this is true, is it still possible for
> database corruption to occur in the copied versions?  If so, why?  I
> can only guess Derby might be doing some background maintenance tasks
> (for example, a checkpoint?), and that somehow copying the files
> produced inconsistencies since files were changing as they were being
> copied, but I am only guessing.
>   

If you know for a fact that there is no thread executing queries, and
that there is no checkpoint or background writer running (Derby's
checkpoints and background writers are triggered by write activity, not
by the clock, so after a sufficiently large idle period they shouldn't
be running), then the copied files should give you a consistent snapshot
of the database. However, the only way to enforce that a running
database is in a state where it's safe to copy it, is to call the
SYSCS_FREEZE_DATABASE system procedure first. Also, since copying a
database that's not frozen is not a supported or documented use case,
future changes in the implementation of the engine may change these
assumptions with no notice.

-- 
Knut Anders


Mime
View raw message