db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oystein.Grov...@Sun.COM (Øystein Grøvlen)
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-230) "Schema already exists" when creating a table
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:22:20 GMT
>>>>> "A" == Army  <qozinx@sbcglobal.net> writes:

    A> Øystein Grøvlen (JIRA) wrote:

    >> Attaching  a new version  of the  patch where  I have  increased the
    >> probability of the test reproducing the bug by increasing the number
    >> of threads to 200. It now fails  16 out of 20 times on a single-CPU
    >> machine.  Increasing the number of threads further seems to increase
    >> the  execution  time  very  much.  Considering  that  when  running
    >> derbyall, the test  is run three times in  different frameworks, the
    >> probability  of the  test suite  detecting the  rebirth of  this bug
    >> should be more than 98%. On  a 2-CPU machine the test failed 20 out
    >> of 20 times.

I think I have to back out on the increase to 200 threads.  Once in a
while the test now seems to fail with lock timeouts.  Apparently the
contention for the single lock pool gets to high.  (This happens all
the time if I use 500 threads).  Hence, I will change back to 100
threads and attach the new patch to the Jira issue.

    A> Thanks for looking  into this more. Given that, as  you said, this is
    A> pretty minor bug, and seeing has  no one else has spoken up to object,
    A> I guess this seems like an acceptable approach for now.

    A> So  I give  it a  +1, with  one question:  the latest  patch  that you
    A> submitted had the following at the top:

    A> -- <begin patch paste> --

    A> Property changes on:
    A> ___________________________________________________________________
    A> Name: svn:ignore
    A>     - classes
    A> changenumber.properties
    A> jars
    A> javadoc

    A>     + .ignore
    A> *.diff
    A> classes
    A> jars
    A> TAGS
    A> testdir

    A> -- <end patch paste> --

    A> Your previous  patches didn't have this  in it, and I'm  not sure what
    A> this  is doing.  Do you  know,  or was  this accidental?  If it  was
    A> accidental, then my "+1" vote would be on the assumption that this was
    A> removed. If it's intentional, then  can you tell me briefly what this
    A> is doing?

It is a result of me playing around with the ignore property to see if
I could get svn to ignore some files I had put into the trunk
directory.  I guess I should just learn to place my files somewhere
else.  I will fix this in the new patch.


View raw message