[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1343?page=all ]
Satheesh Bandaram updated DERBY-1343:
-------------------------------------
Summary: 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. (was: Derby is dropping wrong row in SYSCONGLOMERATES when a
foreign key(defined on same columns as primary key) is dropped)
Description:
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?"
was:
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?"
> 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
> Type: Bug
> Components: SQL, Store
> Versions: 10.0.2.0
> Reporter: Mamta A. Satoor
>
> 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
