[jira] Commented: (DERBY-3944) CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12647374#action_12647374 ] Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-3944: -- Thanks for the extra information, Andrew. In the meantime, discussion has continued on the email thread mentioned above. Dag's eagle eyes spotted the following chapter and verse, which appears to settle the spec issues: section 4.27.2 Characteristics of SQL-invoked routines: > > If a is contained in a of a > > view, a check constraint, or an assertion, the of a > > trigger, or in an , then the subject routine for > > that invocation is determined at the time the view is created, the > > check constraint is defined, the assertion is created, the trigger is > > created, or the SQL-invoked routine is created. > CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results > depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE > -- > > Key: DERBY-3944 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: SQL >Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0 >Reporter: Rick Hillegas > > When compiling a CHECK constraint on behalf of an INSERT/UPDATE statement, > Derby uses the current schema in order to resolve unqualified function names > which appear in the CHECK constraint. This means that the CHECK constraint > may evaluate true for some users, false for others, and for others the CHECK > constraint may raise an error saying that Derby can't resolve the function > reference. This behavior violates the "retrospective determinacy" of CHECK > constraints as specified by part 2 of the ANSI/ISO standard: > 1) section 11.9 (), syntax rule 5 > 2) same section, general rule 1 > 3) section 11.6 (), general rule 3 > 4) section 4.16 (Determinism) > For more discussion, please see this email thread: > http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-CHECK-constraints-td20445344.html#a20445344 > The following script demonstrates this problem: > connect > 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=test_dbo;password=test_dbopassword' as > test_dbo_conn; > drop table t_bp_2; > drop function f_fp_minus; > create function f_fp_minus > ( > a int > ) > returns int > language java > deterministic > parameter style java > no sql > external name > 'org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.GeneratedColumnsTest.minus' > ; > create table t_bp_2( a int, constraint t_bp_2_check check ( f_fp_minus( a ) < > 0 ) ); > grant insert on t_bp_2 to public; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); > connect 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=janet;password=janetpassword' > as janet_conn; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (DERBY-3944) CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12647041#action_12647041 ] Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-3944: I checked yesterday and contrary to the way the docs read, DB2 doesn't actually allow user defined functions in SQL in check constraints either. I suspect this may simply be an overlooked corner in the SQL spec, since none of the major vendors support user-defined functions in check constraints and built-in functions never need a schema qualifier. > CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results > depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE > -- > > Key: DERBY-3944 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: SQL >Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0 >Reporter: Rick Hillegas > > When compiling a CHECK constraint on behalf of an INSERT/UPDATE statement, > Derby uses the current schema in order to resolve unqualified function names > which appear in the CHECK constraint. This means that the CHECK constraint > may evaluate true for some users, false for others, and for others the CHECK > constraint may raise an error saying that Derby can't resolve the function > reference. This behavior violates the "retrospective determinacy" of CHECK > constraints as specified by part 2 of the ANSI/ISO standard: > 1) section 11.9 (), syntax rule 5 > 2) same section, general rule 1 > 3) section 11.6 (), general rule 3 > 4) section 4.16 (Determinism) > For more discussion, please see this email thread: > http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-CHECK-constraints-td20445344.html#a20445344 > The following script demonstrates this problem: > connect > 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=test_dbo;password=test_dbopassword' as > test_dbo_conn; > drop table t_bp_2; > drop function f_fp_minus; > create function f_fp_minus > ( > a int > ) > returns int > language java > deterministic > parameter style java > no sql > external name > 'org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.GeneratedColumnsTest.minus' > ; > create table t_bp_2( a int, constraint t_bp_2_check check ( f_fp_minus( a ) < > 0 ) ); > grant insert on t_bp_2 to public; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); > connect 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=janet;password=janetpassword' > as janet_conn; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (DERBY-3944) CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12646906#action_12646906 ] Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-3944: -- Thanks, Andrew. I agree that there are applications which might want CHECK constraints to behave as you describe. That behavior, however, violates my understanding of "retrospective determinacy". It may be that the standard did a poor job of integrating user-defined functions with CHECK constraints. I will ask around for more guidance. > CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results > depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE > -- > > Key: DERBY-3944 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: SQL >Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0 >Reporter: Rick Hillegas > > When compiling a CHECK constraint on behalf of an INSERT/UPDATE statement, > Derby uses the current schema in order to resolve unqualified function names > which appear in the CHECK constraint. This means that the CHECK constraint > may evaluate true for some users, false for others, and for others the CHECK > constraint may raise an error saying that Derby can't resolve the function > reference. This behavior violates the "retrospective determinacy" of CHECK > constraints as specified by part 2 of the ANSI/ISO standard: > 1) section 11.9 (), syntax rule 5 > 2) same section, general rule 1 > 3) section 11.6 (), general rule 3 > 4) section 4.16 (Determinism) > For more discussion, please see this email thread: > http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-CHECK-constraints-td20445344.html#a20445344 > The following script demonstrates this problem: > connect > 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=test_dbo;password=test_dbopassword' as > test_dbo_conn; > drop table t_bp_2; > drop function f_fp_minus; > create function f_fp_minus > ( > a int > ) > returns int > language java > deterministic > parameter style java > no sql > external name > 'org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.GeneratedColumnsTest.minus' > ; > create table t_bp_2( a int, constraint t_bp_2_check check ( f_fp_minus( a ) < > 0 ) ); > grant insert on t_bp_2 to public; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); > connect 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=janet;password=janetpassword' > as janet_conn; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (DERBY-3944) CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12646728#action_12646728 ] Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-3944: DB2 assigns it to the current schema. In the default case, this is the schema corresponding to the user id. FWIW, the copy of the SQL standard I have says in sec. 5.4, 4a that the unqualified identifiers should resolve to the current schema for the SQL session and the definition of routine invocation has no language to contradict that and simply says that it's a qualified identifier. While it seems logical to me that an unqualified function name in a check constraint would resolve to the schema containing the table with the constraint, it could be useful to have the function resolve to different functions in each schema, e.g. allowing different users to insert data into a table with different constraints. > CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results > depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE > -- > > Key: DERBY-3944 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: SQL >Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0 >Reporter: Rick Hillegas > > When compiling a CHECK constraint on behalf of an INSERT/UPDATE statement, > Derby uses the current schema in order to resolve unqualified function names > which appear in the CHECK constraint. This means that the CHECK constraint > may evaluate true for some users, false for others, and for others the CHECK > constraint may raise an error saying that Derby can't resolve the function > reference. This behavior violates the "retrospective determinacy" of CHECK > constraints as specified by part 2 of the ANSI/ISO standard: > 1) section 11.9 (), syntax rule 5 > 2) same section, general rule 1 > 3) section 11.6 (), general rule 3 > 4) section 4.16 (Determinism) > For more discussion, please see this email thread: > http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-CHECK-constraints-td20445344.html#a20445344 > The following script demonstrates this problem: > connect > 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=test_dbo;password=test_dbopassword' as > test_dbo_conn; > drop table t_bp_2; > drop function f_fp_minus; > create function f_fp_minus > ( > a int > ) > returns int > language java > deterministic > parameter style java > no sql > external name > 'org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.GeneratedColumnsTest.minus' > ; > create table t_bp_2( a int, constraint t_bp_2_check check ( f_fp_minus( a ) < > 0 ) ); > grant insert on t_bp_2 to public; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); > connect 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=janet;password=janetpassword' > as janet_conn; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (DERBY-3944) CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12646685#action_12646685 ] Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-3944: -- Thanks, Andrew. When you've got a moment, can you let us know what schema DB2 assigns to the function references if they aren't qualified with an explicit schema name? > CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results > depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE > -- > > Key: DERBY-3944 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: SQL >Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0 >Reporter: Rick Hillegas > > When compiling a CHECK constraint on behalf of an INSERT/UPDATE statement, > Derby uses the current schema in order to resolve unqualified function names > which appear in the CHECK constraint. This means that the CHECK constraint > may evaluate true for some users, false for others, and for others the CHECK > constraint may raise an error saying that Derby can't resolve the function > reference. This behavior violates the "retrospective determinacy" of CHECK > constraints as specified by part 2 of the ANSI/ISO standard: > 1) section 11.9 (), syntax rule 5 > 2) same section, general rule 1 > 3) section 11.6 (), general rule 3 > 4) section 4.16 (Determinism) > For more discussion, please see this email thread: > http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-CHECK-constraints-td20445344.html#a20445344 > The following script demonstrates this problem: > connect > 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=test_dbo;password=test_dbopassword' as > test_dbo_conn; > drop table t_bp_2; > drop function f_fp_minus; > create function f_fp_minus > ( > a int > ) > returns int > language java > deterministic > parameter style java > no sql > external name > 'org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.GeneratedColumnsTest.minus' > ; > create table t_bp_2( a int, constraint t_bp_2_check check ( f_fp_minus( a ) < > 0 ) ); > grant insert on t_bp_2 to public; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); > connect 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=janet;password=janetpassword' > as janet_conn; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (DERBY-3944) CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12646683#action_12646683 ] Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-3944: Did a quick check as I happened to have several different DBs handy. DB2 v9 only allows user defined functions that can be expressed in SQL, and IDS 11, Oracle 9, and MS SQL Server 2005 all disallow user-defined functions in check constraints. > CHECK constraints involving user-coded functions may return different results > depending on who performs the trigging INSERT/UPDATE > -- > > Key: DERBY-3944 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3944 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: SQL >Affects Versions: 10.5.0.0 >Reporter: Rick Hillegas > > When compiling a CHECK constraint on behalf of an INSERT/UPDATE statement, > Derby uses the current schema in order to resolve unqualified function names > which appear in the CHECK constraint. This means that the CHECK constraint > may evaluate true for some users, false for others, and for others the CHECK > constraint may raise an error saying that Derby can't resolve the function > reference. This behavior violates the "retrospective determinacy" of CHECK > constraints as specified by part 2 of the ANSI/ISO standard: > 1) section 11.9 (), syntax rule 5 > 2) same section, general rule 1 > 3) section 11.6 (), general rule 3 > 4) section 4.16 (Determinism) > For more discussion, please see this email thread: > http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-CHECK-constraints-td20445344.html#a20445344 > The following script demonstrates this problem: > connect > 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=test_dbo;password=test_dbopassword' as > test_dbo_conn; > drop table t_bp_2; > drop function f_fp_minus; > create function f_fp_minus > ( > a int > ) > returns int > language java > deterministic > parameter style java > no sql > external name > 'org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.GeneratedColumnsTest.minus' > ; > create table t_bp_2( a int, constraint t_bp_2_check check ( f_fp_minus( a ) < > 0 ) ); > grant insert on t_bp_2 to public; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); > connect 'jdbc:derby:derbyauth;create=true;user=janet;password=janetpassword' > as janet_conn; > insert into test_dbo.t_bp_2( a ) values ( 100 ); -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
