[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6904?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15907861#comment-15907861
]
Harshvardhan Gupta edited comment on DERBY-6904 at 3/13/17 5:05 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Bryan,
Soft Upgrade Strategy -
In the attached updated patch, I tweaked the SYSColumnsRowFactory to serve all
columns except the newly introduced one while running a database in soft
upgrade mode. (i.e both forward and backward compatible). The code flow was
modelled after Derby-534 for introducing a new in column SYSTRIGGERS..
Since most test suites used only soft upgrade mode, I passed all the test
suites except the upgradeTests package which explicitly boots the old databases
in hard upgrade mode other than soft upgrade mode. I am yet to implement a hard
upgrade strategy.
Should we look at the SYSSEQUENCES column and populated the value in SYSCOLUMNS
as part of explicit hard upgrade?
The updated patch passed all the test suites other than upgradeTests test suite
where some tests require a hard update strategy. I also tested soft updates
using IJ for database created using 10.13, the created databases are both
backward and forward compatible with 10.14.
Additionally all the update logic is contained in DD_VERSION file. Please let
me know if the current soft strategy I am using is not a desired one.
was (Author: harshvardhan145):
Thanks Bryan,
Soft Upgrade Strategy -
In the attached updated patch, I tweaked the SYSColumnsRowFactory to serve all
columns except the newly introduced one while running a database in soft
upgrade mode. (i.e both forward and backward compatible). The code flow was
modelled after Derby-534 for introducing a new in column SYSTRIGGERS..
Since most test suites used only soft upgrade mode, I passed all the test
suites except the upgradeTests package which explicitly boots the old databases
in hard upgrade mode other than soft upgrade mode. I am yet to implement a hard
upgrade strategy.
Should we look at the SYSSEQUENCES column and populated the value in SYSCOLUMNS
as part of explicit hard upgrade?
The updated patch passed all the test suites other than upgradeTests test suite
where some tests require a hard update strategy. I also tested soft updates
using IJ for database created using 10.13, the created databases are both
backward and forward compatible with 10.14.
> Enhance ALTER TABLE to allow CYCLE option to be changed.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6904
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6904
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.13.1.0
> Reporter: Bryan Pendleton
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: 6904_2.diff, 6904.diff, columnMismatch, compareDbName
>
>
> It would be nice to have a variant of the ALTER TABLE statement,
> similar to the SET INCREMENT BY or SET RESTART WITH variants,
> that allowed a user to change the CYCLE option on an IDENTITY column.
> I think that the code flow for this could be closely modelled on the
> code flow for the SET INCREMENT BY variant: after the statement
> is parsed, we simply need to drop and recreate the underlying SEQUENCE
> object with the desired CYCLE option (and preserving all the other
> aspects of the underlying SEQUENCE object.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
