[jira] Commented: (DERBY-3319) Logical connections do not check if a transaction is active on close

["Kristian Waagan (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3319?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12584874#action_12584874 ] 

Kristian Waagan commented on DERBY-3319:
----------------------------------------

I would think points 1 is incorrect behavior. If that one is fixed, I think point 3 might be okay.

Points 2 and 4 are good. I believe it is required to be able to support "connection stealing", i.e. when a connection pool implementation executes a sequence like this:
PooledConnection pc = ...
Connection lc1 = pc.getConnection()
// Give lc1 to a user/client.
// Then wait, and determine that the user having lc1 has crashed / timed out / misbehaved.
// Take back control of the physical connection and give a new logical connection to another user.
Connection lc2 = pc.getConnection()
// lc1 will now be closed / invalidated and should not contain any reference to the pooled / physical connection.

We should not throw an exception in this case. Also note that the reference to the PooledConnection will normally not be available to end-users.
I logged this issue to get point 1 fixed.

> Logical connections do not check if a transaction is active on close
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-3319
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3319
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: JDBC, Network Client
>    Affects Versions: 10.3.2.1, 10.4.0.0, 10.5.0.0
>         Environment: Embedded driver and client driver.
>            Reporter: Kristian Waagan
>         Attachments: LogicalConnectionCloseActiveTransactionBug.java
>
>
> If you call close on a logical connection, for instance as obtained through a PooledConnection, it does not check if there is an active transaction.
> The close of the logical connection is allowed, and even the close of the parent PooledConnection is allowed in the client driver. This can/will cause resources to be left on the server, and later operations might fail (typically with lock timeouts because the "closed" transaction is still holding locks).
> I do not know if gc will solve this eventually, but I would say the current behavior of the client driver is wrong in any case.
> There is difference in the behavior between the embedded and the client driver, and there also seems to be a bug in the embedded driver.
> The analysis above is a bit sketchy, so it might be required to look into the issue a bit more...
> I will attach a repro (JDBC usage should be verified as well, is it legal / as intended?)

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.