You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by "Andreas Korneliussen (JIRA)" <de...@db.apache.org> on 2006/06/27 10:00:32 UTC
[jira] Resolved: (DERBY-1361) positioned updates and deletes
allowed after a commit without repositioning the cursor - if the table is
indexed on the columns selected
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1361?page=all ]
Andreas Korneliussen resolved DERBY-1361:
-----------------------------------------
Fix Version: 10.2.0.0
Resolution: Fixed
Committed revision 417366.
> positioned updates and deletes allowed after a commit without repositioning the cursor - if the table is indexed on the columns selected
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-1361
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1361
> Project: Derby
> Type: Bug
> Components: JDBC
> Versions: 10.2.0.0
> Environment: Java 1.4
> Reporter: Andreas Korneliussen
> Assignee: Andreas Korneliussen
> Fix For: 10.2.0.0
> Attachments: DERBY-1361.diff, DERBY-1361.stat, DERBY-1361v2.diff, DERBY-1361v2.stat
>
> After a commit, the cursor should be positioned before the next row (not on a row). However in Derby 10.2, I now see the following behavior if the table has an index on the selected columns:
> ij> create table t (id int primary key);
> ij> commit;
> ij> insert into t values 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9;
> 9 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> commit;
> ij> get cursor c1 as 'select * from t for update';
> ij> next c1;
> ID
> -----------
> 1
> ij> commit;
> ij> update t set id=id+1000 where current of c1;
> 1 row inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> commit;
> ij> update t set id=id+1000 where current of c1;
> 1 row inserted/updated/deleted
> ij>
> The expected behavior is that the UPDATE .. WHERE CURRENT OF fails with:
> ERROR 24000: Invalid cursor state - no current row.
> The problem applies to both scrollable and forward-only updatable cursors.
> Note: If the table is created *without* the index, I do see the expected behavior.
> I am marking this as a regression, since this issue is not reproducible on older, released versions of derby (I have tested with 10.1.2.1).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira