[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13797035#comment-13797035
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-6362:
-------------------------------------------
I don't think the original compilation schema is stored currently, so we
probably cannot get it for the existing constraints. So for the existing
constraints that use unqualified function names, I think we only have these
options on upgrade:
# use the constraint's schema as compilation schema (the constraint will
preserve the old behaviour on upgrade)
# fail (either on upgrade or when the CHECK constraint is evaluated)
# drop ambiguous constraints
I think I prefer option 1.
We also need to decide what to do with new constraint definitions in soft
upgrade. Since we don't have a mechanism to store the compilation schema
currently, we probably have to use the constraint's schema for the constraints
defined during soft upgrade. That is, preserve the old behaviour. In hard
upgraded databases we could change ConstraintDescriptor to include the original
compilation schema.
> CHECK constraint uses wrong schema for unqualified routine invocations
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6362
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6362
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.10.1.1
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
>
> DERBY-3944 fixed the problem with CHECK constraints invoking different
> routines depending on who performed the triggering INSERT or UPDATE statement.
> The discussion leading up to DERBY-3944 can be found here:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200811.mbox/%[email protected]%3E
> Three alternatives are discussed in the thread:
> A) The schema that holds the CHECK constraint?
> B) The schema that holds the table?
> C) The current schema when the CREATE TABLE statement was issued?
> The conclusion in the thread was that option C was the correct one. However,
> what was implemented, was option B.
> I cannot find any information in DERBY-3944 about why option B ended up being
> chosen, so I assume that it was unintended.
> Here's an ij script that shows how the CHECK constraint tries to invoke the
> TO_HEX function in the schema of the target table (S2) instead of the schema
> that was the current schema at the time of CREATE TABLE:
> ij version 10.10
> ij> connect 'jdbc:derby:memory:db;create=true';
> ij> create schema s1;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> create schema s2;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> create function s1.to_hex(i int) returns char(4) language java parameter
> style java external name 'java.lang.Integer.toHexString' no sql;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> set schema s1;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> create table s2.t(x int, constraint cc check(to_hex(x) <> '80'));
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> insert into s2.t values 1;
> ERROR 42Y03: 'TO_HEX' is not recognized as a function or procedure.
> (errorCode = 30000)
> ij> create function s2.to_hex(i int) returns char(4) language java parameter
> style java external name 'java.lang.Integer.toHexString' no sql;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> insert into s2.t values 1;
> 1 row inserted/updated/deleted
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
