|
[
Permalink
| « Hide
]
Vlad Khorsun added a comment - 28/Feb/09 06:14 AM
Why do you clone old closed ticket ?
should I open a new ticket for the same bug?
Do you have reproducible test case ?
Or you just like to make copy of already closed isues ? ;) As you provided ZERO info i don't see what to do with it Yes, I can reproduce this bug. Please browse to test for
if you need more informations please contact me. Additional fixes for TPC was committed
Ertan, next time, please, put reference to the test case at the corresponding ticket.
It is impossible to find QA-229 looking at this ticket. I tested the fix (2.5 Beta 1), it works (as workaround) but if transaction limit exceeded, is backup not possible.
Does you read error message and made database read-only before backing it up ?
OK, my mistake. It works with read-only database. thx.
Is it possible tx-number as Int64 to implement? (to avoid backup/restore) I would rather prefer to be able to wrap the 32-bit value and reuse the values.
Ertan Altekin> Is it possible tx-number as Int64 to implement? (to avoid backup/restore)
No, as tx numbers stored in records and we don't want to enlarge record header Dmitry Yemanov> I would rather prefer to be able to wrap the 32-bit value and reuse the values. Is was discussed some time ago but no good solution was offered, iirc |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Bug
Resolved
Critical
More problems with transaction numbers overflowing 32-bit signed integer and corrupting database
