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

Multiple bugs in gbak when working with ACLs [CORE2223] #2651

Closed
firebird-automations opened this issue Dec 3, 2008 · 12 comments
Closed

Multiple bugs in gbak when working with ACLs [CORE2223] #2651

firebird-automations opened this issue Dec 3, 2008 · 12 comments

Comments

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator

Submitted by: @AlexPeshkoff

Is related to CORE216
Is related to CORE1957

In a lot of places of gbak code only single segment of blob is taken into an account. This started to cause problems after extending ACLs to let them be >64K which was done recently.

I.e. the visibility of this bug is limited to some snapshot builds of 1.5.6 / 2.0.5 / 2.1.2 / 2.5 Beta, including the pre-released 2.0.5 RC1.

Commits: b0b98b4 9a95250 9291e8f ae73249 eda7114

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

assignee: Alexander Peshkov [ alexpeshkoff ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @AlexPeshkoff

The dark side of a problem is that segment size on ACL blob was decreased from MAX_USHORT to 4Kb. Therefore currently people have problems restoring databases with ACLs which used to work before just fine.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

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

Target: 2.0.5, 2.1.2, 2.5 Beta 1, 1.5.6 [ 10222, 10270, 10251, 10225 ]

Fix Version: 2.0.5 [ 10222 ]

Fix Version: 2.1.2 [ 10270 ]

Fix Version: 2.5 Beta 1 [ 10251 ]

Fix Version: 1.5.6 [ 10225 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

Link: This issue is related to CORE216 [ CORE216 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

Link: This issue is related to CORE1957 [ CORE1957 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

summary: Multiple bugs in gbak when working with BLOBs => Multiple bugs in gbak when working with ACLs

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

Target: 2.0.5, 2.1.2, 2.5 Beta 1, 1.5.6 [ 10222, 10270, 10251, 10225 ] => 1.5.6 [ 10225 ]

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

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Version: 2.1.1 [ 10223 ]

Version: 2.5 Alpha 1 [ 10224 ]

Version: 2.0.4 [ 10211 ]

Version: 2.1.0 [ 10041 ]

Version: 1.5.5 [ 10220 ]

Version: 2.0.3 [ 10200 ]

Version: 2.0.2 [ 10130 ]

Version: 2.0.1 [ 10090 ]

Version: 1.5.4 [ 10100 ]

Version: 2.0.0 [ 10091 ]

Version: 1.0.3 [ 10006 ]

description: In a lot of places of gbak code only single segment of blob is taken into an account. This started to cause problems after extending ACLs to let them be >64K. => In a lot of places of gbak code only single segment of blob is taken into an account. This started to cause problems after extending ACLs to let them be >64K which was done recently.

I.e. the visibility of this bug is limited to some snapshot builds of 1.5.6 / 2.0.5 / 2.1.2 / 2.5 Beta, including the pre-released 2.0.5 RC1.

environment: Visible in the v2.0.5 RC1 pre-release and some snapshot builds only.

Version: 2.0.5 [ 10222 ] =>

Version: 2.1.2 [ 10270 ] =>

Version: 2.5 Beta 1 [ 10251 ] =>

Version: 1.5.6 [ 10225 ] =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

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

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @AlexPeshkoff

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

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

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

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pavel-zotov

QA Status: No test

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