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

Bugcheck 291 [CORE195] #522

Closed
firebird-automations opened this issue Oct 20, 2002 · 22 comments
Closed

Bugcheck 291 [CORE195] #522

firebird-automations opened this issue Oct 20, 2002 · 22 comments

Comments

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator

Submitted by: @AlexPeshkoff

Is related to QA246

Attachments:
bug291.sql
bugcheck291.sql

SFID: 625899#⁠
Submitted By: alexpeshkoff

Bugcheck 291 occurs when update of that same record,
that fired a trigger, done in BEFORE UPDATE trigger.

Testing environment - FB1.0, FB1.5 / Win32.

This bug appears to be FB/IB version and OS
independent, but if someone may check it with LINUX
and/or old Interbase versions, that should be useful.

This small script (just 1 table with 2 fields, 1 trigger and
4 records) always raise bugcheck 291 - cannnot find
back record version.
I have added the following debugging in jrd/exe.cpp
(modify):

after case req::req_return:
gds__log("I %p %p %p %6d %3d %6d %3d %s",
org_rpb, org_rpb->rpb_record, org_rpb->rpb_prior,
org_rpb->rpb_page, org_rpb->rpb_line,
org_rpb->rpb_b_page, org_rpb->rpb_b_line,
org_rpb->rpb_relation->rel_name);

before VIO_modify
gds__log("< ... (all the rest is the same)
after VIO_modify
gds__log("> ... (all the rest is the same)

This is the output of this debugging (a bit stripped):
OK (Server) Sun Oct 20 15:18:29 2002
I 02708CF4 02720D48 00000000 150 2 0 0 T1
I 026F083C 026F55A8 00000000 150 3 0 0 T1
I 02708464 026F2AA8 00000000 150 0 0 0 T1
I 02707CEC 026F2D40 00000000 150 3 0 0 T1
< 02707CEC 026F2D40 00000000 150 3 0 0 T1
> 02707CEC 026F2D40 026F2D40 150 3 150 4 T1
< 02708464 026F2AA8 00000000 150 0 0 0 T1
> 02708464 026F2AA8 026F2AA8 150 0 150 5 T1
I 02708514 026F2720 00000000 150 1 0 0 T1
I 02707D9C 026F1680 026F1680 150 3 150 4 T1
< 02707D9C 026F1680 026F1680 150 3 150 4 T1
> 02707D9C 026F1680 00000000 150 3 150 6 T1
< 02708514 026F2720 00000000 150 1 0 0 T1
> 02708514 026F2720 026F2720 150 1 150 4 T1
< 026F083C 026F55A8 00000000 150 3 0 0 T1
> 026F083C 026F55A8 026F55A8 150 3 150 7 T1
I 026F08EC 026F19F0 026F19F0 150 3 150 7 T1
I 02708724 026F1D70 026F1D70 150 3 150 7 T1
< 02708724 026F1D70 026F1D70 150 3 150 7 T1
> 02708724 026F1D70 00000000 150 3 150 8 T1
< 026F08EC 026F19F0 026F19F0 150 3 150 7 T1

OK (Server) Sun Oct 20 15:18:29 2002
Database: C:\INFOSYSTEM\BUG291.GDB
internal gds software consistency check
(cannot find record back version (291))

OK (Server) Sun Oct 20 15:18:29 2002

OK (Server) Sun Oct 20 15:18:29 2002
Database: C:\INFOSYSTEM\BUG291.GDB
internal gds software consistency check
(cannot find record back version (291))

OK (Server) Sun Oct 20 15:18:29 2002

You may see, that firebird lost that part of information
about back version of the record, that was stored in rpb.
Any ideas?

Commits: 6f53965 aa91b84 a14bd30 b2fc9d8 8d6e79c

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: Alice F. Bird (firebirds)

Date: 2002-10-20 14:44
Sender: alexpeshkoff
Logged In: YES
user_id=423445

Mentioned by me script is present in bugtracking system,
and called bug291.sql.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

status: Closed [ 6 ] => Reopened [ 4 ]

SF_ID: 625899 =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

status: Reopened [ 4 ] => Resolved [ 5 ]

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ]

SF_ID: 625899 =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

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

SF_ID: 625899 =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @pcisar

Reopened just to add attachment.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

status: Closed [ 6 ] => Reopened [ 4 ]

SF_ID: 625899 =>

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ] =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @pcisar

SQL script to run

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

Attachment: bug291.sql [ 10086 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

status: Reopened [ 4 ] => Closed [ 6 ]

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ]

SF_ID: 625899 =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

Workflow: jira [ 10219 ] => Firebird [ 14425 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @ibprovider

This problem exists in Firebird 2.5.0.25916 [x64] [SuperServer]
internal Firebird consistency check (cannot find record back version (291), file: vio.cpp line: 5014)

Firebird 2.1 (build 18185) - FAIL
internal Firebird consistency check (cannot find record back version (291), file: vio.cpp line: 5034).

Firebird 2.0 (build 12981) - FAIL
internal Firebird consistency check (cannot find record back version (291), file: vio.cpp line: 4816).

Firebird 1.5 (build 4910) - OK.

---
Script with demonstration of this bugcheck is attached

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @ibprovider

Attachment: bugcheck291.sql [ 11565 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @AlexPeshkoff

Confirmed.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

status: Closed [ 6 ] => Reopened [ 4 ]

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ] =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @AlexPeshkoff

Was reintroduced (in a much less destructive way) in 2.0.
Much less destructive means here that it takes place only for the physically first record in a table.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

Version: 2.5 RC1 [ 10362 ]

Version: 2.1.3 [ 10302 ]

Version: 2.5 Beta 2 [ 10300 ]

Version: 2.5 Beta 1 [ 10251 ]

Version: 2.1.2 [ 10270 ]

Version: 2.0.5 [ 10222 ]

Version: 2.1.1 [ 10223 ]

Version: 2.5 Alpha 1 [ 10224 ]

Version: 2.0.4 [ 10211 ]

Version: 2.1.0 [ 10041 ]

Version: 2.0.3 [ 10200 ]

Version: 2.0.2 [ 10130 ]

Version: 2.0.1 [ 10090 ]

Version: 2.0.0 [ 10091 ]

Version: 2.5 RC2 [ 10372 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

status: Reopened [ 4 ] => Resolved [ 5 ]

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ]

Fix Version: 2.0.6 [ 10303 ]

Fix Version: 2.1.4 [ 10361 ]

Fix Version: 2.5.0 [ 10221 ]

Fix Version: 3.0 Alpha 1 [ 10331 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Fix Version: 2.5 RC3 [ 10381 ]

Fix Version: 2.5.0 [ 10221 ] =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

Link: This issue is related to QA246 [ QA246 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @pmakowski

QA test made

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pmakowski

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

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pavel-zotov

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

QA Status: Done successfully

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment