Andrej Badinka created OPENJPA-2639:
---------------------------------------

             Summary: OptimisticLock on Partitioned tables
                 Key: OPENJPA-2639
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2639
             Project: OpenJPA
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: kernel
    Affects Versions: 2.3.0
            Reporter: Andrej Badinka


We created partition tables as it is described in the guide on 
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/ddl-partitioning.html .
I have a function that inserts records to partition table depending on date and 
a trigger that calls that function, like in the documentation.

When i try to persist new entity in transaction to this partitioned log_table, 
I get an exception on commiting:
{quote}
Caused by: <openjpa-2.3.0-r422266:1540826 nonfatal store error> 
org.apache.openjpa.persistence.OptimisticLockException: An optimistic lock 
violation was detected when flushing object instance 
"...entities.LogTable@4a6e9cd6" to the data store.  This indicates that the 
object was concurrently modified in another transaction.
FailedObject: ...entities.LogTable@4a6e9cd6
        at 
org.apache.openjpa.jdbc.kernel.PreparedStatementManagerImpl.flushAndUpdate(PreparedStatementManagerImpl.java:124)
{quote}
Near that lines there is a code
{quote}
int count = executeUpdate(stmnt, sql, row);
           if (count != 1) {
               logSQLWarnings(stmnt);
{quote}
that is causing this exception I assume. On Postgres page there is an issue 
regarding this 
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] and 
they state that the behaviour of returning 0 is common.

The difference in inserting on normal table and partitioned table is:
When I insert one record manualy using INSERT on partitioned table it works, 
but returns "Query returned successfully: *0 rows affected*, 54 ms execution 
time."
Without the trigger, the manual INSERT command returns "Query returned 
successfully: *one row affected*, 51 ms execution time."

Without the trigger, it works OK in java code, so the java code should be ok. I 
do nothing exceptional for persisting the entity.




--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to