db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: should attempts to shut down the database timeout if they exceed DriverManager.setLoginTimeout( N )?
Date Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:50:54 GMT
On 4/10/2013 10:11 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
> On 4/10/13 9:32 AM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
>> On 4/10/2013 6:11 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>> On 4/9/13 1:46 PM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
>>>> Derby uses making a connection to shutdown the database, and in
>>>> DERBY-6122 it looks like that attempt to shutdown the database
>>>> can timeout.
>>> Thanks for raising this issue, Mike. Login timeouts could interfere with
>>> orderly shutdown for several reasons, including:
>>>
>>> A) Network problems which slow down LDAP authentication.
>>>
>>> B) Heavily loaded databases which need a lot of time to quiesce.
>>>
>>> If login timeouts turn out to be a problem for orderly shutdown, one
>>> solution might be to implement an alternative api for bringing down a
>>> database and/or engine. See this very old enhancement request:
>>> DERBY-586. From time to time we get static about these two features of
>>> the Derby shutdown api:
>>>
>>> 1) It's quirky to shutdown via a startup api.
>>>
>>> 2) It's annoying that a successful shutdown results in an exception
>>> which the application has to catch.
>> I agree with 1+2 here.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do wonder if this is what a user would expect?
>>> Probably not. But with or without timeouts, the Derby shutdown api isn't
>>> what people coming from other databases expect. I think we have to live
>>> with this additional kink as long as we overload the JDBC connection api
>>> this way.
>>
>> That is sort of what I thought, just wanted to make sure it was current
>> expected behavior.  Is it worth calling this behavior out in 10.10
>> documentation, I know I was surprised when I first saw it
> I think this is a good idea. We document other hurdles which shutdown
> must pass, e.g., authentication and database ownership problems. The
> fact that you were surprised by this behavior suggests that it will
> surprise people who are less familiar with Derby. I have logged
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6165 to track this issue.
>
> I do think that we should address DERBY-586 in 10.10.2. I plan to
> propose a new shutdown api soon, which we can discuss on that issue.
That sounds great.  We often hear complaints on this part of Derby.
What people want is an interface to call that will guarantee shutdown
and not return until the shutdown is complete.
>> - then thinking about implementation of shutdown through login
>> understood from
>> a code level.
>>
>> Worst case now a search on this forum will explain.
> I'm comfortable with that. I don't think this problem merits re-spinning
> 10.10.1.
I agree.

>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Rick
>>>>
>>>> /mikem
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message