[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-393?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854451#action_12854451
]
Eric Sirianni commented on DERBY-393:
-------------------------------------
The Derby Developer's Guide states:
Corruption can occur even if one of the two booting systems has "readonly"
access to the database.
(http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.5/devguide/cdevdvlp20458.html)
So does the above proposal of accessing the database via a new
DirStorageFactory subclass that returns true for "isReadOnlyDatabase" do the
trick? Alternatively, does the documentation need to be updated?
I agree it would be very useful to have read-only access to a directory-based
database that is booted as writable by a different JVM. Consider the common
use case of using 'ij' to do some read-only SQL queries while the application
that is writing the derby DB is still running...
> Allow multiple JVMs to have read-only access to the same directory-based
> database
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-393
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-393
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Trejkaz
> Attachments: readonly.patch
>
>
> For an application I'm building, we needed to permit multiple JVMs to access
> the same database.
> We couldn't easily use a network server configuration, as it would be
> difficult to figure out who to connect to since either user might want to
> view the database while the other database is offline.
> We couldn't just dump all the data in a JAR file, as our databases often end
> up being several gigabytes in size.
> So what we really need is a version of the directory store which is treated
> as if it were read-only.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
