Bug 2764

I agree GT4 should be database neutral.  I don't think you need to find 
another way to generate IDs, or use other identifiers like UUID as an index 
into the requests.
Postgres, MySql, Cloudscape/Derby and other databases have ways of generating 
sequential IDs.  This is usually defined when you create the tables. 
 
In GT4, in the ReliableFileTransferDbAdapter.java code you reference a 
Postgres extension (ie. SEQUENCE) with the following statement:
         ResultSet rs = statement.executeQuery("SELECT last_value  FROM "   
+ "request_seq");

In GT3, in the TransferDbAdapter.java code you use a more database generic 
statement:

 ResultSet rs = statement.executeQuery("SELECT COUNT(id) FROM " + "request");

Why not use this more generic mechanism?

Because when rft resources reach end of their life time they are removed from
the database and select 
count(id) from request; may result in a id that is already been used. it worked
in gt3.2 as the records in 
the database were never cleaned by the service

Via the email gateway:

Ravi I have a few doubts about your response and would like further 
clarification regarding this. Lets consider the following steps:
(1) state of a transfer request is active now.
(2) the database is accessed and a row is created
(3) Lets assume the autoincrement column is used to generate ids so an id 
is chosen
(4) the service has the id of the request and it can use that id to refer 
to the respective row in the database
(5) The service uses the id by doing select count(id), lets say in the 
following situations:
        -> when the marker is changed
        -> when the container goes down and comes back up again
        -> when the lifetime of the request expires
(6) Finally, in an ideal case the transfer request reaches the "Finished" 
state and a transfer is successfully completed. 
(7) The service starts the cleanup process..

        Now I have no idea how does this cleanup process works,, like what 
are the details. How does this cleanup process makes the use of sequence 
in Postgres safer, agreeable and feasible and why and how does it make the 
count(id) problematic? 
Probably I am not understanding exactly what are the pros and cons of one 
technique over another? We agree that the service persists its state data, 
hence the ids its keeping track of, is aware of, is using to access the 
db. What I dont understand is how the service persists the id data, if 
sequence is used and why it wont persist the id data if count(id) is used 
and what are the impacts of the cleanup process on either of these 
techniques?
I really appreciate some further clarification regarding this issue. 
Thanks a lot,

Shama Ghulamhussain
IBM Advanced Systems Infrastructure Development
T/L: 295 8284
ghulamhu@us.ibm.com

Created an attachment (id=539) [details]
removing select last_value from request_seq query

Ok this is what you got to do. 
1.remove request_seq from rft database schema.
2. Apply this patch if possible or do something that I do here. You 
basically should insert the requestId instead of database inserting it 
with next value of sequence.
3. See if you can get away doing the same trick with transfer table. And 
let me know how it works out.

Any updates on this one ?

I just comitted changes to trunk and globus_4_0_branch that would work around
from using sequences in 
postgres. I tested my changes with mysql.