Open Source Document Management

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ld_workflowhistory

I noticed an exception when running logical doc from command promt (v.s running as service). Apperently an (or several?) tables are missing. My installation is on a Oracle database. Before you start yelling at me, let me explain in short why I have chosen Oracle. I’m a (C++) developer – working for that large (avoiding ‘big’) blue company . One of the specialties in my portfolio is handling middleware like Oracle or MQ. With Oracle I work as long as I can look back. For development purposes and some private issues I have an instance running at home in a virtual machine on my VM server. Event though I’m aware of all (better: most) the ways to backup an Oracle DB (online or offline), in this case I choose to do a full backup of the VM itself (while in suspended state). That works great for years now. By running that instance in a VM it always stays the same - regardless of any change (server, hardware) in my home environment. Even some of my customers do it the same way now

Enough of talking, back to the problem. The exception I found stated ‘bad SQL grammar [SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ld_workflowhistory]; nested exception is java.sql.SQLSyntaxErrorException: ORA-00942: table or view does not exist’. I double checked in the DB, and yes, the table is missing.

My question: is this table ‘not required’, was it forgotten (possibly because not too many people care for installing this on Oracle).

Best Regards.

Dear skydiver,
this is a known problem.
The fact is that the table ld_workflowhistory does not exists in the community edition of logicaldoc and then,
regardless of whether you have an Oracle installation the exception occurs.

The solutions would be to manually create this table
create table ld_workflowhistory (ld_docid number(19,0) not null, ld_tag varchar(255));

column names do not matter...

Otherwise you have to wait for the release of version 6.0.2, scheduled for the end of this month that will correct this and other minor problems.

Alex

Thanks for this clarification.