Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
On 7/9/07, Stanley Bradbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi Myrna -
Thanks for the through release report. I took a look at the critical
bug list and am concerned about the regression that causes locking
problems:
DERBY-2892 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2892> - this is
a regression of the DERBY-255 fix and, though it was introduced in 10.2,
should be addressed quickly. Has anyone look at the checkin that might
have caused the regression?
No one has signed up.
DERBY-326 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-326> (svn
405037).
This also concerns me because I assume the problem is because of the
collation differences between the SYS schema and the User Database - I
am not upto date on this issue - can it be resolved?
You must be meaning a different bug? Sorry, but I don't understand.
I've been trying to figure out which bug you *could* be referring to,
but maybe you can just tell me.
DERBY-2896 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2896> - It
sounds like DatabaseMetaData calls will fail when TERRITORY_BASED
collation is used. This will mean that many IDEs will not work with
these databases. Since this is a new feature it will not break existing
systems but will slow use of the feature.
Again, no one signed up.
One of the aspects that I let weigh in on deciding to call a vote or
to hold it up for these critical issues, is that no one *has* signed
up. I can theorize based on past track records & hope that certain
people might step up to the plate, but as long as there's no firm
assignment coupled with an indication from the responsible individual
that it's going to be done within a reasonable time frame, I don't
think it makes sense to hold up a release...
Myrna
Hi Myrna -
Bad formatting on that last message.
The reference to Derby-326 relates to DERBY-2892 (the first issue). A
comment in DERBY-2832 suggests that the changes made for DERBY-326
caused the regression reported as DERBY-2832. I was hoping that someone
knowledgeable about the performance improvements could quickly address
this issue.
My concern about comparisons between the SYS schema tables and the User
schemas related to the second issue of DatabaseMetaData failures.
I don't think there is anything for you to do at this point. The
community needs to look at these and determine if they will be highly
detrimental to the Derby release. I have no doubt that, if released
with these problems, 10.3 users will encounter these issues sooner
rather than later.
After some testing I may raise these concerns in a separate thread.
And thanks again for your very through risk-analysis that highlighted
these (and other) issues. It shows you are very much 'on top' of the
Release.
