Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

3.0 error handling for SELECT WITH LOCK breaks compatibility with 2.5 [CORE5555] #5822

Closed
firebird-issue-importer opened this issue May 30, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@firebird-issue-importer

Submitted by: bazilio (bazilio77)

Votes: 1

Executing SELECT WITH LOCK for the same record twice in different transactions produced SQLCODE = -901 GDSCODE = 335544345 in 2.5
But 3.0 break compatibility of error handling/
It does SQLCODE = -904 GDSCODE = 335544878

Commits: bb0afc7 c74e931

@firebird-issue-importer
Copy link
Author

firebird-issue-importer commented May 30, 2017

Modified by: @hvlad

assignee: Vlad Khorsun [ hvlad ]

@firebird-issue-importer
Copy link
Author

firebird-issue-importer commented May 30, 2017

Commented by: @hvlad

With fix this case (active concurrent transaction vs SELECT WITH LOCK) returns the same sequence of error codes as other 4 cases of update conflicts:
isc_deadlock, isc_update_conflict, isc_concurrent_transaction

See also comments at CORE4473

@firebird-issue-importer
Copy link
Author

firebird-issue-importer commented May 30, 2017

Modified by: @hvlad

status: Open [ 1 ] => Resolved [ 5 ]

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ]

Fix Version: 4.0 Alpha 1 [ 10731 ]

Fix Version: 3.0.3 [ 10810 ]

@firebird-issue-importer
Copy link
Author

firebird-issue-importer commented Jun 22, 2017

Modified by: @pavel-zotov

status: Resolved [ 5 ] => Resolved [ 5 ]

QA Status: No test => Done successfully

@firebird-issue-importer
Copy link
Author

firebird-issue-importer commented Jun 22, 2017

Modified by: @pavel-zotov

status: Resolved [ 5 ] => Closed [ 6 ]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants