On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Matrigali <[email protected]> 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 10.8.2.1 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?). 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'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
