John Embretsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stanley Bradbury wrote: > >> I would like to follow up on the suggestion made by Kathey Marsden that >> an announcement be posted to derby-user recommending that version 10.3 >> users upgrade to a Derby version that contains the fix for DERBY-3347. >> The email from Binoy Thomas this morning could be an incident of >> DERBY-3347 [Subject: DB gets corrupts in 10.3.1.2!!] > > It does not seem absolutely clear from that derby-user thread that > upgrading to 10.4.1.3 resolved the issue. Are we still confident > (enough) that the issue has been completely fixed in 10.4.1.3?
I believe that the derby-user thread is talking about a separate issue, also seen in Derby 10.2 (DERBY-3606). Since this issue also results in database corruption, they have the same symptoms. -- Knut Anders
