[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2592?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jazarine Jamal updated DERBY-2592:
----------------------------------
Attachment: DERBY-2592.diff
I just removed the last part of the sentence and now I think the documentation
is right..
> Wrong description of IndexName field in public JavaDoc for LockTable
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2592
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2592
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Javadoc
> Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
> Reporter: Olav Sandstaa
> Assignee: Jazarine Jamal
> Priority: Trivial
> Attachments: DERBY-2592.diff
>
>
> The public JavaDoc for LockTable says the following in the description of the
> INDEXNAME retrieved from SYSCS_DIAG.LOCK_TABLE:
> INDEXNAME varchar(128) - normally null. If non-null, a lock is held on the
> index, this can only happen if this is not a user transaction.
> I think the last part is wrong. Normal user transactions might also have a
> value in the INDEXNAME. For example, here is part of the lock table for three
> user transactions:
> XID |TYPE |MODE|TABLENAME |LOCKNAME |STATE|TABLETYPE|INDEXNAME
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 186 |ROW |X |T2 |(1,9) |GRANT|T |NULL
> 184 |ROW |S |T2 |(1,9) |WAIT |T |NULL
> 188 |ROW |X |T1 |(1,11) |GRANT|T |NULL
> 186 |ROW |S |T1 |(1,11) |WAIT |T |NULL
> 186 |ROW |S |T1 |(1,1) |GRANT|T |SQL070425023213370
> 188 |ROW |S |T1 |(1,1) |GRANT|T |SQL070425023213370
> 184 |ROW |X |T1 |(1,7) |GRANT|T |NULL
> 188 |ROW |S |T1 |(1,7) |WAIT |T |NULL
> Two of the lock entries have an index. I expect this to be the Scan lock that
> have been set during traversal of the B-tree.
> Proposed fix: remove the last part of the sentence.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
