Saturday, June 3, 2006, 12:42:49 AM CET, Deepa Remesh wrote: > On 6/2/06, John Embretsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The same test was run against the trunk not so long ago, and was able >> to run for at least 4 weeks without producing the same error (although >> memory usage graphs seem rather similar at first glance). I am assuming >> that this increased robustness (10.2 vs. 10.1) has something to do with >> the fact that DERBY-210 patches are in trunk, but not in the 10.1 >> branch, as far as I know. >> > The patches were recently ported to10.1 branch (on 05/22/06) as part > of DERBY-1103. I did not notice that, thanks for letting me know... It did not make it in time for the 10.1.2.4 snapshot, so it is good to know that results for the final 10.1.3 release may be different (hopefully better!). -- John
