Activity
From 03/14/2025 to 04/12/2025
04/09/2025
- 08:14 AM Feature #9093 (Test): add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables th...
- Branch 9093a was merged to trunk rev 15848 and archived.
- 01:13 AM Feature #9093 (Merge Pending): add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import ...
- Please merge 9093a to trunk after 6859a.
- 08:11 AM Bug #9633: bulk delete for permanent tables
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Andrei, shouldn't @loopDelete@ obtain an exclusive-lock on the records?
Right. I'll a... - 07:07 AM Bug #9633: bulk delete for permanent tables
- Andrei, shouldn't @loopDelete@ obtain an exclusive-lock on the records?
Also, the buffer scope is ignored - if a p... - 06:48 AM Bug #9633: bulk delete for permanent tables
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> There is a single commit (15847) in 9633a.
>
> Good job! The conversion part looks OK to...
04/08/2025
- 07:36 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> I didn't see any recent changes in the branch that were not related to the rebase, so can I ... - 08:46 AM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- I didn't see any recent changes in the branch that were not related to the rebase, so can I assume that since interna...
- 01:30 PM Bug #9633: bulk delete for permanent tables
- There is a single commit (15847) in 9633a.
Good job! The conversion part looks OK to me. The bulk delete runtime s... - 06:05 AM Bug #9633 (Review): bulk delete for permanent tables
- Created task branch *9633a* from trunk rev 15846. The changes are in 15847:
* extended @bulk_delete_table@ processin... - 06:05 AM Bug #9633 (WIP): bulk delete for permanent tables
04/07/2025
- 04:21 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- 7020c & 7020d were rebased to trunk revision 15842.
7020d is now at revision 15858.
04/05/2025
- 04:42 PM Feature #9831: add admin API to set c3p0 configuration for individual tenant databases
- Created branch 9831a and committed the implementation.
Committed revision 15843. - 11:23 AM Bug #9872: Runtime import statement relies on the ImportWorker to read lob data.
- The @PropertyMapper@ is one class which was created only during the import, as an utility of @ImportWorker@. The fact...
04/04/2025
- 06:10 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- I rebased 9093a. Pushed up to revision 15848.
I also created #9875 to hold customer specific scripts for importing... - 03:45 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- Indeed, I tried to keep it up-to-date.
However, there were a couple of big updates this wee, so it requires rebasi... - 03:40 PM Feature #9093 (Internal Test): add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import ...
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Ovidiu, I think you said last standup that this branch was ready for merge, but it is still ... - 03:33 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- Ovidiu, I think you said last standup that this branch was ready for merge, but it is still in review status, with no...
- 06:14 AM Bug #9872: Runtime import statement relies on the ImportWorker to read lob data.
- In @PropertyMapper.readLobData@, @Importworker@ is used to retrieve the path to the lob file. @Importworker@ is not s...
- 06:12 AM Bug #9872 (New): Runtime import statement relies on the ImportWorker to read lob data.
- 05:00 AM Bug #9853 (Test): ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a b...
Branch 9853a was merged to trunk rev 15841 and archived.- 04:50 AM Bug #9853 (Internal Test): ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the ed...
04/03/2025
- 05:04 PM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> Committed 9853a/15839 and 15840, replacing !isPreselect with errorCondition. Please review.... - 08:26 AM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- Committed 9853a/15839 and 15840, replacing !isPreselect with errorCondition. Please review.
- 06:51 AM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> Would you prefer @errorCondition@? I guess it is less confusing than seeing @isPreselect@ a... - 06:50 AM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- Yes, this is what is happening in @next@. Would you prefer @errorCondition@? I guess it is less confusing than seeing...
- 06:45 AM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- Can we rely on @errorCondition@ instead of @!isPreselect()@? That's set like this:...
- 06:32 AM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- > But, the condition to enter this block is if (cacheOnReval || isPreselect()) - so, can the preselect be false, when...
- 06:26 AM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- I don't really understand the fix.
The line @Results cached = cacheResults(old, true);@ where @Results old = adapt... - 03:58 AM Bug #9853 (Review): ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a...
- Committed 9853a/rev. 15838.
Constantin, please review. - 08:03 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Stefanel,
> I think 7020d is broken at this moment, @RecordMeta@ probably fails to compile... - 07:57 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Stefanel,
> I think 7020d is broken at this moment, @RecordMeta@ probably fails to compile... - 07:48 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Stefanel,
I think 7020d is broken at this moment, @RecordMeta@ probably fails to compile. The reason is the usage of... - 06:55 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- I think making all FOR EACH queries FORWARD-ONLY was the main cause of this problem. I will revisit this after review...
- 06:51 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- This seems solved with trunk 15839 (after rollback of #7991). Looks it is related to FORWARD-RESULTS fix.
04/02/2025
- 11:20 AM Bug #9853 (WIP): ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a br...
- I investigated this case. It is about a fail-safe of @ProgressiveResults@ to invalidate if things look not-alright. B...
- 05:12 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Fixed. Please see *7020d revision 15846*.
I also have rebased 7020c to trunk 15830. Same as 7020d.
04/01/2025
- 12:29 PM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- First, a quick look at 7020c (r15824):
* @FqlToSqlConverter.java@
** multiple usages of @appendExpandedName()@: the...
03/31/2025
- 10:14 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- *7020d* was rebased to *trunk revision 15830* and is now at revision *15843*.
In revision *15844* I committed a fi... - 06:43 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- ...
- 04:12 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- The issue is:...
- 03:43 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- I was able to reproduce the issue.
- 03:41 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Please attach the .df file; what postgresql version do you use?
Just realized I have ... - 03:39 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- Please attach the .df file; what postgresql version do you use?
- 03:39 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- This is the server log of the test, takes more than 5 minutes to run the test.
- 03:28 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- Dănuț Filimon wrote:
> Alex, I can't reproduce this error with latest trunk/15829.
I've tested now and it fails:
<... - 02:55 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- Alex, I can't reproduce this error with latest trunk/15829.
- 02:28 AM Bug #9852 (WIP): Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- 06:18 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Testing performed with *rev. 15835*:
- unit tests of a large customer application ✅
- harness ✅
- Chui regressio...
03/29/2025
- 01:57 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> > [...]
> I see @READ-json@, I was expecting a @read-xml@ based on the changes in @XmlIm...
03/28/2025
- 06:14 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard Soltan wrote:
> I have made the modification in @TempTableBuilder@.
The setters use @_prepared()@ and the ge... - 04:44 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- I have made the modification in @TempTableBuilder@.
But also made some changes in @XmlExport@ and @XmlExport@ to m... - 04:11 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Good, that's the idea.
I think the code will work as expected. My observations for @TempTableBuilder.java@, the on... - 03:33 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Committed on 9763b, rev. 15832.
Sure thing, I added the method in @TempTableBuilder@, and the attributes will be set... - 03:20 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Indeed, it does. This is specific to dynamic temp-tables, therefore, this is the proper place to do it.
LE: the im... - 03:03 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Not in @AbstractTempTable@, just in @TempTableBuilder@.
But this implies to override all... - 02:17 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Not in @AbstractTempTable@, just in @TempTableBuilder@.
LE: and the attributes will be set in @TempTableBuilder.cr... - 02:14 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Only in this particular case (@AbstractTempTable._dynamic()@ returns @true@), the attribut... - 02:09 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard Soltan wrote:
> I am thinking to initialize the @ctx.tt.tempTablePrepare@ and create the @defaultBuffer@, but... - 02:07 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- The @AbstractTempTable@ has two specialised subclasses: @StaticTempTable@ and @TempTableBuilder@ (for dynamic temp-ta...
- 02:06 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard Soltan wrote:
> The problem is that @TempTableBuilder@ does not initialize the @defaultBuffer@. Hence setting... - 01:45 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- There is a regression in at @dataset ddt1:read-xml@, when has no buffer set.
In @XmlImport.importDataset@ it go on... - 12:49 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard Soltan wrote:
> Ovidiu, why do we use @if (buffer.getSerializeName().toStringMessage().equalsIgnoreCase(name)... - 07:19 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- The unit tests and smoke tests of a large GUI application went fine.✅
Also got some news that unit test of a very ... - 04:29 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Testing on another customer application was successful. No more errors encountered nor strange behaviors. ✅
- 03:10 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Ovidiu, why do we use @if (buffer.getSerializeName().toStringMessage().equalsIgnoreCase(name)@ in XmlImport.importDat...
- 10:59 AM Bug #9853: ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a bracket
- ...
- 10:54 AM Bug #9853 (Test): ProgressiveResults invalidate badly when changing the record on the edge of a b...
- 10:54 AM Bug #9852: Portal "C_10" does not exist error
- ...
- 10:53 AM Bug #9852 (WIP): Portal "C_10" does not exist error
03/27/2025
- 04:59 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- I tested @read-json@ and @read-xml@, and they are fine.
Also made some tests with datasets (@define dataset dtt1 f... - 04:44 PM Bug #9763 (Internal Test): xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard Soltan wrote:
> Committed on 9763a, rev. 15796.
A couple of minor observations:
* Please revert @RecordBuff... - 03:00 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Committed on 9763a, rev. 15796.
I modified the @JsonImport@, @JsonExport@, @XmlExport@ and @XmlImport@, to use just ... - 12:08 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard, for some reasons I missed some files in #9763-47 (I think I pressed Ctrl+C in wrong console):
* @JsonExpo... - 11:24 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Also initialize to defaultBuffer in StaticTempTable before setting up its attributes.
- 08:40 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> ** lines 2660-2692: these method seem to be duplicates of 2695-2725? The file most likely f... - 07:41 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- +Review of 9763b/15792+
This is pretty good, but there are several things which must be addressed:
* @AbstractTem...
03/26/2025
- 04:26 AM Bug #9763 (Review): xml-node-name buffer option
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Eduard, is 9763b ready for review?
Yes, it is ready for review. - 08:00 PM Feature #9093 (Review): add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables ...
- I created the new tenant import mode. It is called @strict@ and also added an alias @strict-default@. In this case th...
03/25/2025
- 10:32 AM Feature #9831: add admin API to set c3p0 configuration for individual tenant databases
- The following c3p0 database connection pool settings, normally set in the directory for a primary database, should be...
- 10:20 AM Feature #9831 (Closed): add admin API to set c3p0 configuration for individual tenant databases
- 09:41 AM Support #4060: investigate converting extent fields to array columns
- I wanted to investigate this a little bit. 7020d branch makes it easier to implement this. Most places are already us...
- 09:38 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard, is 9763b ready for review?
- 06:29 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- So, to summarize: *7020d* is based on *trunk 15813*. *7020d* has all the changes from 7020c but with some other impro...
03/24/2025
- 11:06 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- 7020d was rebased to trunk revision 15813.
7020d contains now all the changes from 7020c + some improvements. There ...
03/21/2025
- 08:44 AM Support #4060: investigate converting extent fields to array columns
- Recently we found out that:
* Most databases have a limit on the number of columns in a table.
** PostgreSQL: 160... - 03:34 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Greg Shah wrote:
> For some reason, the work on 9537a is actually in #8982 and the last notes there suggest that we ...
03/20/2025
- 02:58 PM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- If the shared frame above is fixed, yet the customer application hit that other limit, we'd need both to be fixed bef...
- 02:54 PM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Greg Shah wrote:
> For some reason, the work on 9537a is actually in #8982 and the last notes there suggest that we ... - 02:18 PM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- For some reason, the work on 9537a is actually in #8982 and the last notes there suggest that we have a design limita...
- 11:47 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Roger Borrello wrote:
> Is there any relationship between branches 9537a and 7020c? I am especially concerned with m... - 11:39 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Is there any relationship between branches 9537a and 7020c? I am especially concerned with my big application, since ...
- 11:27 AM Feature #7020 (Review): always use "expanded" extent fields
- I have rebased 7020c to trunk revision 15800.
I have committed revisions 15823/15824 with some fixes. Please revie... - 10:57 AM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Stefanel Pezamosca wrote:
> Now that I think about the potential issues, I believe this plan will be safer. So, I’m ...
03/19/2025
- 02:09 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- I am preparing a new @tenantMode@, which will restrict the import to @Default@ physical database only to tables not m...
- 11:06 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Branch 9763c was merged to trunk rev 15800 and archived.
- 03:38 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Created task branch 9763c from trunk rev 15790. 15791 fixes a problem with an edge case (regression in trunk 15785),...
- 04:21 AM Feature #7020 (WIP): always use "expanded" extent fields
- Thank you for the review. I will start working on addressing the above now.
> * as noted above, is the drop of the...
03/18/2025
- 12:58 PM Feature #7020: always use "expanded" extent fields
- Review of 7020c / 15792.
I see that you did what I was afraid to do: completely drop the support for custom extent... - 12:32 PM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Eduard, isn't @SERIALIZE-NAME@ used for JSON? So please try @READ-JSON@ and @WRITE-JSON@... - 11:29 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard, isn't @SERIALIZE-NAME@ used for JSON? So please try @READ-JSON@ and @WRITE-JSON@.
- 11:25 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Main faindings regarding buffer attributes:
@NAMESPACE-URI@
1) for statement @buffer btt1:NAMESPACE-URI@, it w... - 05:09 AM Bug #9763 (WIP): xml-node-name buffer option
- 04:43 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- 9763a was merged into trunk revision 15785 and archived.
- 05:08 AM Feature #9543: implement missing BUFFER attributes
- 9543a was merged into trunk revision 15786 and archived.
- 04:17 AM Bug #9756 (Test): Performance improvements for CONTAINS udf related methods.
- 04:13 AM Bug #9756: Performance improvements for CONTAINS udf related methods.
- Branch 9756a was merged into trunk as rev. 15784 and archived.
03/17/2025
- 09:01 AM Feature #9543 (Merge Pending): implement missing BUFFER attributes
- Please merge after 9763a
- 06:35 AM Feature #9543: implement missing BUFFER attributes
- Performed a conversion of Regression test project and it went without any problems.
- 03:24 AM Feature #9543: implement missing BUFFER attributes
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Please use @rt_lvl_stub@, not @none@.
The necessary change added.
- 03:21 AM Feature #9543: implement missing BUFFER attributes
- Eduard Soltan wrote:
> Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> > You are missing history entry in a file. gaps are not updated... - 03:16 AM Feature #9543: implement missing BUFFER attributes
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> You are missing history entry in a file. gaps are not updated.
Updated gaps, and add... - 02:54 AM Feature #9543: implement missing BUFFER attributes
- You are missing history entry in a file. gaps are not updated.
- 02:40 AM Feature #9543: implement missing BUFFER attributes
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> > Constantin, shouldn't we generate the optimised @logical.TRU... - 09:01 AM Bug #9763 (Merge Pending): xml-node-name buffer option
- Please merge after 9756a.
- 03:16 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> You are missing history entry in a file.
Added history entry. - 02:55 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- You are missing history entry in a file.
- 02:43 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- I performed a conversion of Regression test project with 9763a, rev. 15774. And it went without any problems.
- 05:03 AM Bug #9756 (Merge Pending): Performance improvements for CONTAINS udf related methods.
- Please merge 9756a to trunk *after 9676a*.
- 04:53 AM Bug #9756: Performance improvements for CONTAINS udf related methods.
- I have continued testing various CONTAINS testcases and there were no other issues.
This can be merged.
03/14/2025
- 07:09 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Eduard, the fact that 4GL doesn't allow @label@ as a field name doesn't mean is not poss... - 03:42 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Eduard, the fact that 4GL doesn't allow @label@ as a field name doesn't mean is not possible for the DMO property nam...
- 02:12 AM Bug #9763: xml-node-name buffer option
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Ovidiu, you are right. Eduard: for now, please rename @setLabel@ and @getLabel@ to @lab...
Also available in: Atom