db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lily Wei <lilyweide...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: opinions on a less aggressive release of the istats feature?
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:25:15 GMT
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Knut Anders Hatlen <knut.hatlen@oracle.com
> wrote:

> Mike Matrigali <mikem_app@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> > My main concern has always been just the background work affecting
> > existing applications.  At this point I have been convinced that default
> > on is in keeping with the zero admin goal, and that we have a workaround
> > easily implemented in the field if there are problems.  So if we are
> > going to enable this enventually
> > I would much rather do it in the first release, rather than a subsequent
> > point release.
>
> I agree that turning it on by default does sound right for a zero-admin
> db. And since we believe that it won't cause any serious problems in its
> current state, I'm fine with enabling it. Most users shouldn't even
> notice that it's there, and those who do can easily disable it, as
> documented in the release notes. Hopefully they'll also file bug reports
> about problems they encounter, so that we can improve it further in
> later releases.

We had a fix for DERBY-5108 in the trunk and most of the running result
looks good to me with istate daemon on. My opinion is leaning toward to turn
the default to on for istat daemon. With it on, Derby is still zero-admin
db. Most users shouldn't know it is there.  And, disable it is very easy
process for users. With the original seven days period to see how things are
going, we still have time to see the outcome if we turn the default to on.


Thanks and hope this help,

 Lily

Mime
View raw message