db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] release
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:57:26 GMT
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Matrigali
<mikem_app@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> On 9/29/11 6:22 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> I'm now officially cancelling the vote for as a release
>>> candidate.
>>> The reasons are the issues which I updated to blocker:
>>> DERBY-5430
>>> DERBY-5422
>> Hi Myrna,
>> I believe these are both consequences of increasing the concurrency of
>> identity columns, that is, fallout from DERBY-4437. I am looking at
>> DERBY-5430 now. I intend to look at DERBY-5422 now that you have
>> demonstrated that it is not fixed by the patch for DERBY-5423.
>> I don't think I will be able to wrap up both bugs next week since I will
>> be busy at Java One. Here are some options to consider:
>> 1) Back out the port of DERBY-4437 to 10.8 and continue debugging the
>> issues on the trunk. I am not confident that this will fix DERBY-5422. I
>> think that bug is triggered by the use of identity columns in NsTest and the
>> bug appears because identities now use the same preallocation logic as
>> sequences. It is likely that the bug is also triggered by the use of
>> sequences, and without more investigation I can't say whether the bug is
>> even new to 10.8.2.
> Given the number of issues that have surfaced in this testing round related
> to backport of identity enhancement I would lean toward backing out the
> backport of 4437, cut a new release candidate and verify that nstest no
> longer sees new issues.  I believe even without 4437 the proposed release
> would be a marked improvement for apache 10.8 users.
> Concurrently work on the issues in trunk.   And we can cut another 10.8
> bug fix release down the line when we have had time to fix the issues and
> run some long term stress testing to verify the identity behavior which will
> affect many existing users.
> From my reading of the code I agree with rick that the remaining issues are
> not specific to identity and also affect sequences.   So likely we
> will want to backport fixes made to 10.8 for sequences.  It may be
> interesting to either add sequences to nstest or fork a copy that
> substitutes them to verify that the issue is not particular to identity.
> It would be also valuable if we could produce some tests that reproduce
> the issues much more reliably than nstest.
>> 2) Hope that someone else can pick up DERBY-5422 while I look at
>> DERBY-5430.
>> 3) Wait a couple weeks for the next RC to give me time to fix both of
>> these bugs.
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick

Thanks for your input Rick, Mike.

I think Rick has come a long way in fixing a number of issues
resulting from DERBY-4377. And it appears to me that backing out
DERBY-4377 is also a considerable effort at this time? (I assume this
means we then need to back out also DERBY-5408, doc issue DERBY-5307
(do we loose the need for derby.language.preallocator property if we
back this out?), DERBY-5423? How about DERBY-4565?).

Rick, do you think you could have a handle on DERBY-5430 say - within
a week? How much time/effort would backing out DERBY-4377 take?

I'm not happy to spin a release with only nstest to detect DERBY-5422.

Would a week more time give someone the opportunity to analyze the
problem and come up with a repro? Is there anyone interested/willing
to attempt a repro for either of these two issues?


View raw message