Affects Version/s: 10.14.2.0, 10.15.2.0
Fix Version/s: None
Environment:Looks like environment-independent bug - reproduced in multiple environments (prod/test, win/linux, different Java and Derby versions).
Issue & fix info:Repro attached
Bug behavior facts:Data corruption, Seen in production
We came across a bug in Derby when a DELETE by primary key actually does not delete the row (although it exists).
- We found the issue in a delete-reinsert use case when the reinsert was failing with a "duplicate key" error.
- Note: The attached app to reproduce the issue follows this reinsert pattern.
To reproduce the issue, a SELECT (by PK) is required before the DELETE (by PK).
- SELECT => SELECT => DELETE => RE-INSERT => duplicate key error.
- The DELETE works OK if no or just 1 SELECT is executed before.
- The "failed" DELETE correctly reports "0 rows affected".
- Retrying the DELETE makes the delete really happen.
- The behavior is the same both for autocommit and manual commit mode.
- The behavior is 100% reproducible in the attached demo app.
However, it is not reproducible from DBeaver (using the same queries).
Notes regarding the attached database + demo app to reproduce the issue:
- The app takes 3 arguments: path to the database (string), how many times to execute the initial SELECT (int) and an optional "retry" string to retry the DELETE statement.
- Use "test_app.bat" => there are several execution scenarios, uncomment the one you intend to test.
- With 0-1 SELECTs, the demo app works without any issues.
- With 2+ SELECTs, the demo app fails on "duplicate key" when trying to reinsert the deleted row. The app reports that the DELETE affected 0 rows.
- In the "retry" mode, you can see that 2nd DELETE is successful (even for 3+ SELECTs).
- The issue persists even after a successful delete-reinsert.
- Check for corruption (SYSCS_CHECK_TABLE) indicates that the table is healthy.
- Full rebuild of the affected table (SYSCS_COMPRESS_TABLE) resolves the issue but - there is no way to tell whether a tables needs rebuild to avoid this kind of issue...