On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rick Hillegas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Myrna, > > Some comments inline... > > On 9/30/11 11:57 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote: >> >> 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?). > > I think we would need to back out the following commits: > > DERBY-4437 1141645: This is the master commit which ported most of the 10.9 > changes to 10.8 > > DERBY-4437 1142052: This commit ported an upgrade test from 10.9 to 10.8. > The test verifies the new identity behavior. > > DERBY-5307 1141651: This commit ported documentation of the > derby.language.sequence.preallocator property from 10.9 docs to 10.8 docs. > Note that the property still has meaning for sequences although the property > would be less capable after backing out 1141645. > > DERBY-5408 1170178: This commit ported the localization fixes for the 2200H > message from 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. > > DERBY-5426 1174297: This commit ported some SequenceUpdater changes from > 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. The changes improved the error reporting when there > was too much contention on an identity column. > > I don't think that we need to back out the following work: > > DERBY-5423: Nothing to do here. This issue was resolved because of the work > on DERBY-5426. > > DERBY-4565: Nothing to do here. All of this work made it into 10.6.1.0. > >> 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've made good progress today but I can't promise that I'll understand the > problem by the end of next week. Next week I will be busy at Java One. I > think it's likely I will understand what's broken by the end of the > following week. > > If all goes well, it would take a day to back out DERBY-4437. If all doesn't > go well, it could take longer. > > I don't think I will have time to adequately test an RC which is produced > during the week of Java One. > > Thanks, > -Rick >> >> 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 >> > >
Thank you for the information Rick, I think at this time I'd like for DERBY-4377 to be backed out. Do you have time to tackle this task now? Myrna
