On 6/2/06, John Embretsen <John.Embretsen@sun.com> wrote:
> The same test was run against the trunk not so long ago, and was able
> to run for at least 4 weeks without producing the same error (although
> memory usage graphs seem rather similar at first glance). I am assuming
> that this increased robustness (10.2 vs. 10.1) has something to do with
> the fact that DERBY-210 patches are in trunk, but not in the 10.1
> branch, as far as I know.
>
The patches were recently ported to10.1 branch (on 05/22/06) as part
of DERBY-1103.
Thanks,
Deepa
|