db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [Proposal for Review] The fix for DERBY-3347 is important enough for the Development Community to issue a recommendation the User Community to upgrade.
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:33:03 GMT
Now that we have a release which contains the bugfix, should we remove 
the 10.3 series of releases from the download page? I feel uncomfortable 
exposing distributions which we think are too dangerous to use. At a 
minimum, we should hedge the links with a "use at your own risk" 
warning. Would we need to call a vote in order to deprecate these 
releases or can any committer unilaterally make this decision?


Stanley Bradbury wrote:
> Hello Developers -
> I would like to follow up on the suggestion made by Kathey Marsden 
> that an announcement be posted to derby-user recommending that version 
> 10.3 users upgrade to a Derby version that contains the fix for 
> DERBY-3347.  The email from Binoy Thomas this morning could be an 
> incident of DERBY-3347 [Subject: DB gets corrupts in!!]
> In hopes of moving this forward I have drafted such an announcement 
> and would greatly appreciate review and suggestions from the 
> developers most familiar with this bug.  In the message below I have 
> listed the reported error and loosely described other errors that 
> might be generated should a database become corrupted by this defect. 
> I recommend a course of action and use of database consistency 
> checks.  If particularly Knut would review and comment on the bug 
> related information I would be very grateful.  Word-smithing and other 
> adjustments are also welcome.
> If this proposal concerns you please respond or I will assume a lazy 
> consensus.
> And a couple of ideas to give this proposal more weight:
> Would a PMC member volunteer to sponsor this post?  Having an 
> acknowledged leader of the development community would give the 
> recommendation more weight in many circles.
> Can the recommendation, if posted, be identified as being made by or 
> at least supported by the Development Community or a majority of the 
> Development Community?  Again this would give more weight and bring 
> more attention to the recommendation.  As currently worded the 
> recommendation has no author other than the sender of the message.
>  *** For Review and comment  ***
> The Bottom Line:
> It is strongly recommended that you upgrade to Derby to avoid 
> any chance of database corruption due to DERBY-3347.  Alternatively 
> you can build version 10.3 from the current codeline which also 
> contains the fix for this defect.
> This bug can cause unrecoverable database corruption during periods of 
> heavy, multi-thread I/O operations.  The error produced in the test 
> case used to diagnose the problem was:
>  ERROR XSDB3: Container information cannot change once written: was 0, 
> now 80
> It is felt that other errors might also be generated when this type of 
> corruption occurs.  The corruption message will most likely refer to 
> page 0 of the container.
>  EXAMPLE:  ERROR XSDG1: Page Page(1039,Container(0, 5856)) could not 
> be written...
> This bug corrupts the pages on disk and can go unnoticed.  If you do 
> not run database consistency checks regularly it is recommended you 
> begin doing so as soon as possible after the upgrade.  To insure that 
> corruption has not already occurred in existing databases, after 
> upgrade run the database consistency at least once to validate all 
> tables in the database.  This process is documented at:
>  http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DatabaseConsistencyCheck
> If corruption has already occurred the database will need to be 
> recovered from the last good backup. 
> Version can be downloaded from:
> *** END of Proposed Post  ***

View raw message