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 "Rick Hillegas (JIRA)" <de...@db.apache.org> on 2006/09/19 16:55:27 UTC
[jira] Updated: (DERBY-1343) It is possible to have duplicate
entries in conglomerateId of sysconglomerates before DERBY-655 was fixed in
10.0 or 10.1 databases. It is desirable to patch these databases on upgrade
to 10.2 so conglomerateId becomes unique again.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1343?page=all ]
Rick Hillegas updated DERBY-1343:
---------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 10.2.2.0
(was: 10.2.1.0)
Moving to 10.2.2.0.
> It is possible to have duplicate entries in conglomerateId of sysconglomerates before DERBY-655 was fixed in 10.0 or 10.1 databases. It is desirable to patch these databases on upgrade to 10.2 so conglomerateId becomes unique again.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-1343
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1343
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.0.2.0
> Reporter: Mamta A. Satoor
> Fix For: 10.2.2.0
>
>
> Because of an optimization implemented in before Derby 10.0 release, it is possible to have duplicate entries in conglomerateId column. It would be good to patch these entries during upgrade to 10.2 or later so that conglomerateIds become unique again. See the discussion and proposed solutions at:
> http://www.nabble.com/-Derby-655-+%3A+getImportedKeys+returns+duplicate+rows+in+some+cases-t1673189.html#a4535887
> When a user defines a constraint, Derby checks to see if it's backing index is a duplicate of an existing index and if yes, then it shares the same conglomerates for both such indexes. Code for this is in org.apache.derby.impl.sql.execute.CreateIndexConstantAction.executeConstantAction. This causes Derby to have duplicate rows in sysconglomerates with same conglomerateid. (More information on this can be found in thread http://www.nabble.com/-Derby-655-+%3A+getImportedKeys+returns+duplicate+rows+in+some+cases-t1673189.html#a4535887 titled "[DERBY-655] : getImportedKeys returns duplicate rows in some cases".
> During drop constraint, it looks like Derby is not able to identify the correct row in SYSCONGLOMERATES, if there are duplicate rows with same conglomerateid and as a consequence, wrong row gets dropped in SYSCONGLOMERATES. More information with an example on this can be found in thread http://www.nabble.com/When+foreign+key+is+dropped%2C+is+Derby+dropping+the+wrong+row+from+SYS.SYSCONGLOMERATES--t1654121.html#a4481463 titled "When foreign key is dropped, is Derby dropping the wrong row from SYS.SYSCONGLOMERATES?"
--
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