On Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 18:09 Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> I updated the changelog and I think we are ready for a patch release. > OK sounds good. I'll get to that today. Gary > Phil > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 12:24 PM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > That all sounds good. I can create a release candidate anytime if you > want. > > > > Gary > > > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 1:43 PM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Given that the regression reported in POOL-427 is significant, I think > we > > > should move quickly to validate the fix for the regression (or revert > > back > > > to the previous version of the method) and create a patch release as > soon > > > as possible. The investigations around POOL-413 are great and should > > > continue in parallel. It would be great if we could discuss ideas for > > how > > > to address the core issue there here instead of spread across PRs. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 11:10 AM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I just reverted the added sync in PR #452, which violates the "no > > factory > > > > methods while holding locks" invariant. Strangely, the added tests > for > > > > POOL-426 still pass. I think the race condition is still present and > > the > > > > general problem in POOL-413 remains unresolved. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:55 PM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> The fix for POOL-425 included in the 2.13.0 release introduced a > > > >> regression that makes addObject no-op when maxIdle is set to a > > negative > > > >> value (no limit). The POOL-425 fix also failed to account for a > race > > > >> condition reported in POOL-426. > > > >> > > > >> I have created a PR https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/pull/452 > > that addresses > > > >> both issues. To avoid the race condition, I had to add > > synchronization to > > > >> addObject. I tried several ways to avoid the race by modifying > > create (as > > > >> suggested by Raju Gupta, the OP for POOL-426) but I could not find a > > way to > > > >> do that safely without introducing other issues. I don't see the > > added > > > >> sync in addObject as critical as this method is not used in hot code > > paths > > > >> internally and the lock that it acquires is the same lock that > create > > will > > > >> subsequently acquire if it proceeds to add an object. > > > >> > > > >> The regression could be addressed in a simpler way by just fixing > the > > > >> error in the code (failure to check for negative maxIdle). If > there > > are > > > >> any doubts about the PR above, I am happy to make that simple > > change. In > > > >> any case, we should patch this quickly as it will likely break some > > apps > > > >> that use addObject with maxIdle unilimited. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, all, and sorry for my mistake in the POOL-425 fix. > > > >> > > > >> Phil > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
