[OPEN-ILS-DEV] ***SPAM*** RE: ***SPAM*** RE: ***SPAM*** RE: Trouble with 1.6.1. > 2.0 upgrade

[Peters, Michael]

Mike,

I actually think this is going to affect me all the way back through even some of the 1.6 upgrades.

Since this is just for testing purposes, would you know off hand which schema's I could drop from my snapshot and let the upgrades recreate?

Sincerely, 
Michael Peters 
Indiana State Library MIS | Inspire.IN.gov Helpdesk | Evergreen Indiana Helpdesk
office - 317.234.2128 
email - mrpeters at library.in.gov 


-----Original Message-----
From: open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rylander
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:31 AM
To: Evergreen Development Discussion List
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] ***SPAM*** RE: ***SPAM*** RE: ***SPAM*** RE: Trouble with 1.6.1. > 2.0 upgrade

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Peters, Michael
<MRPeters at library.in.gov> wrote:
> Hey Mike,
>
> It failed after:
>
> 2010-11-08 14:53:19 EST LOG:  duration: 0.055 ms  statement: INSERT INTO action_trigger.hook (key,core_type,description) VALUES ('renewal','circ','Item
> renewed to user');
>
> So I assume the culprit is:
>
> INSERT INTO action_trigger.validator (module,description) VALUES ('MaxPassiveDelayAge','Check that the event is not too far past the delay_field time -- requires a max_delay_age interval parameter');
>
>
> Sure enough, I already have this:
>
> evergreen=# SELECT * FROM action_trigger.validator WHERE module='MaxPassiveDelayAge';
>       module       |                                                 description
> --------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  MaxPassiveDelayAge | Check that the event is not too far past the delay_field time -- requires a max_delay_age interval parameter
> (1 row)
>
> I'm using a snapshot of our production database.  Would this be at all related to already having these in our database in 1.6.0.0 for the notices development we did with you all?
>
> I'm wondering what else, if anything, we may already have backported?


In your case, possibly quite a bit.  I'd suggest moving all the
INSERTs (and any dependent UPDATEs) to after the transaction.  Also,
if you haven't already, you'll probably want to start with a fresh
snapshot to avoid any partial upgrade pain.

-- 
Mike Rylander
 | VP, Research and Design
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com