[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kim Haase reopened DERBY-4259:
------------------------------
Thanks for catching this, Dag.
I notice that in the Developer's Guide we talk about a "full upgrade" rather
than a "hard upgrade" (though the opposite is still "soft").
I should probably refer to the "upgrade=true attribute" topic, which then
refers to the appropriate section of the Dev Guide.
So a soft upgrade does not change the DataDictionaryVersion, unlike a full
upgrade?
I'll file another suggested patch.
> Document database property for determining database format version
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4259
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4259
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Documentation
> Affects Versions: 10.6.1.0
> Reporter: Kathey Marsden
> Assignee: Kim Haase
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 10.10.0.0
>
> Attachments: DERBY-4259-2.diff, DERBY-4259-2.zip, DERBY-4259-3.diff,
> DERBY-4259-3.zip, DERBY-4259.diff, DERBY-4259.stat, DERBY-4259.zip
>
>
> It would be useful to have a public interface for determining the database
> format when running in soft upgrade mode. In the derby-user thread:
> http://www.nabble.com/Hard-upgrade-failing--td23826558.html#a23835534
> Evan pointed out he was using an undocumented property
> 'DataDictionaryVersion' for this purpose, but this is not ideal because it
> does not conform to the normal derby.* naming convention and is not
> documented.
> Discussion in DERBY-4255 determined that there are not currently
> DatabaseMetaData methods that achieve the same result.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
