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 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:24:32 GMT
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rick Hillegas <rick.hillegas@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Myrna,
> Some comments inline...
> On 9/30/11 11:57 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>> 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?).
> I think we would need to back out the following commits:
> DERBY-4437 1141645: This is the master commit which ported most of the 10.9
> changes to 10.8
> DERBY-4437 1142052: This commit ported an upgrade test from 10.9 to 10.8.
> The test verifies the new identity behavior.
> DERBY-5307 1141651: This commit ported documentation of the
> derby.language.sequence.preallocator property from 10.9 docs to 10.8 docs.
> Note that the property still has meaning for sequences although the property
> would be less capable after backing out 1141645.
> DERBY-5408 1170178: This commit ported the localization fixes for the 2200H
> message from 10.9 to the 10.8 branch.
> DERBY-5426 1174297: This commit ported some SequenceUpdater changes from
> 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. The changes improved the error reporting when there
> was too much contention on an identity column.
> I don't think that we need to back out the following work:
> DERBY-5423: Nothing to do here. This issue was resolved because of the work
> on DERBY-5426.
> DERBY-4565: Nothing to do here. All of this work made it into
>> 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've made good progress today but I can't promise that I'll understand the
> problem by the end of next week. Next week I will be busy at Java One. I
> think it's likely I will understand what's broken by the end of the
> following week.
> If all goes well, it would take a day to back out DERBY-4437. If all doesn't
> go well, it could take longer.
> I don't think I will have time to adequately test an RC which is produced
> during the week of Java One.
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>> 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?
>> Myrna

Thank you for the information Rick,

I think at this time I'd like for DERBY-4377 to be backed out.
Do you have time to tackle this task now?


View raw message