From torque-dev-return-7871-apmail-db-torque-dev-archive=db.apache.org@db.apache.org Thu May 03 15:47:32 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-torque-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 76354 invoked from network); 3 May 2007 15:47:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 May 2007 15:47:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16799 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2007 15:47:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-torque-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 16786 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2007 15:47:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact torque-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Apache Torque Developers List" Reply-To: "Apache Torque Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list torque-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 16771 invoked by uid 99); 3 May 2007 15:47:34 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2007 08:47:34 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [70.103.251.107] (HELO scalix0.corp.dotster.net) (70.103.251.107) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2007 08:47:26 -0700 Received: from scalix0.corp.dotster.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by scalix0.corp.dotster.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l43Fl5s2011374 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 08:47:05 -0700 Received: from scalix0.corp.dotster.net (root@localhost) by scalix0.corp.dotster.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l43Fl5f8011373 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 08:47:05 -0700 Received: from localhost.localdomain (dotster-vip2.corp.dotster.net 70.103.251.2) by scalix0.corp.dotster.net (Scalix SMTP Relay 10.0.1.3) via ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2007 08:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l43Fl4WV011090 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 08:47:04 -0700 Received: (from brmiller@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Submit) id l43Fl4k5011089 for torque-dev@db.apache.org; Thu, 3 May 2007 08:47:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:47:04 -0700 From: "Brendan Miller" To: Apache Torque Developers List Message-ID: <20070503154704.GA10522@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4639D6AD.2040705@apache.org> References: <4639D6AD.2040705@apache.org> Subject: Re: Torque 3.3-RC3 x-scalix-Hops: 1 x-scalix-Authenticated-Sender: brmiller@dotster.com at 70.103.251.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.5 (2005-11-28) on scalix0.corp.dotster.net X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.8 required=6.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=failed version=3.0.5 On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:33:49PM +0200, Thomas Vandahl wrote: > I would like to call a vote on Torque 3.3-RC3 in the near future. I > should be hopefully the last RC before final release. Is there anything > that needs to be fixed before? I just noticed this last week, and have not gotten around to bringing it up here, nor filing a jira or thereabouts. I observed when calling TablePeer.doDelete(tableObject) for an object that had a type="TIMESTAMP" (stored as TIMESTAMP(6) in Oracle), it would not find the matching row to delete. I tracked this down to the SQL that was being generated omitted the milliseconds. A row in a table with a column called 'ENTRY_TIMESTAMP' has the value: 18-APR-07 03.41.56.705000 AM as viewed by SQL*Plus. The generated SQL fragment is TO_DATE('18-APR-2007 03:41:45', 'DD-MM-YYYY HH24:MI:SS') as evidenced by DBOracle.java. This is insufficient to match the milliseconds which Village apparently use when inserting the record. To get around this, I have written my own buildCriteria() for these objects that excludes the timestamp fields, but this is a temporary hack. Am I on track with this? Is the fix trivial enough to be included in RC3? I haven't thought about an actual solution, and whether the getDateString() needs to have conditional behavior depending on the definition of the column (i.e., TIMESTAMP, TIMESTAMP(3), TIMESTMAP(6), etc.), but it is an annoyance (and a recent observation). Thanks, Brendan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org