Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of dremesh@gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.193 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=ojrT7bSliFCl515ol6rBVUna3FL6RSW5j1yo0m3mzI+pV9kWEvqgpnmuojvj0BBI6ho9ug0A6d/wLT1IIn1pqPpqOYw3IoR1uEkz4bd47YgeqmWiJx7VWSU8zAlNNh1OwyUuWgVFrVkmGvuqKa6QKU5aYftp3McJCwMlmMpGkHk=
Message-ID: <58ed70f50602151421u216bfc99ocf3130bd59b99071@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:21:00 -0800
From: Deepa Remesh <dremesh@gmail.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-210) Network Server will leak prepared
 statements if not explicitly closed by the user until the connection is
 closed
In-Reply-To: <43F3A260.7020109@amberpoint.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1527603664.1113181887106.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
	 <1479006966.1139856795534.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
	 <58ed70f50602131149y5bd7f393t9462c1558ea72be9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43F34617.9030605@apache.org>
	 <58ed70f50602151331y10965c31n4c84f73448740ad6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43F3A260.7020109@amberpoint.com>

>
> What's the right thing to do here? Should we re-open DERBY-614 and
> have me work on that as a separate item? Or is it adequate just to
> include
>
>    splitQRYDTA =3D null;
>
> in your changes for DERBY-210?
>
> I suspect that the change really belongs with DERBY-614, but it's
> going to be a blocker for you and it will take me some time to
> develop and test a completely separate patch with focused repro, etc.
>
> What do you suggest?

I think it would be better to do it as part of DERBY-614 since it
belongs there. In case we need to port DERBY-614 to 10.1, all changes
will be in one place. Since it is clear that the field needs to be
reset and the overhead of making a repro is so signifcant, I don't
think we need a separate test for this. We will need to run the test
suites to just confirm this does not break anything. If this is okay,
I can create a patch and upload it to DERBY-614.

Thanks,
Deepa