[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1384?page=comments#action_12415413 ]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-1384: ---------------------------------------------- I would say strictly speaking that this is not a concern for soft-upgrade. The data written to disk (if the default for BLOB was changed) does not result in a on-disk format that is mis-understood by 10.0 or 10.1. The column would be processed correctly and have the correct meta data. This is like the previous change where the max identifier lengths for certain objects was increased in 10.1. The change didn't need soft-upgrade checks as any larger identifiers were understood by 10.0. Satheesh, I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your SELECT statement that would fail. In what exact situations would that fail? > Increase default BLOB/CLOB length to maximum supported (2G?) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: DERBY-1384 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1384 > Project: Derby > Type: Improvement > Components: SQL > Reporter: Bernt M. Johnsen > Assignee: Bernt M. Johnsen > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 10.2.0.0 > Attachments: derby-1384-code.diff, derby-1384-code.stat, > derby-1384-docs.diff, derby-1384-docs.stat > > Default BLOB/CLOB length should be the maximum length supported by Derby (2G?) -- 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
