Awww crap.

Let's revert the whole thing then.  I always felt that 'fix' was more voodoo 
than science.

IMHO I don't think the original bug should be a blocker for 0.10.  IIRC it 
isn't a regression, and there's a 'work around' by using proton events.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gordon Sim" <>
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:09:07 AM
> Subject: Re: proton 0.10 blocker
> On 07/20/2015 08:53 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > I'm fine going ahead with Gordon's fix. I don't have a lot of time to dig
> > into the refcounting issue personally right now, but I'd at least leave the
> > bug open until we have made it through a bit more testing. I have an uneasy
> > feeling it (or something closely related) may pop up again if we push
> > harder on testing.
> You were right I'm afraid! I've seen further failures of a similar
> nature even with that fix now committed. They seem less frequent
> (previously I was seeing a core dump every run, now its more like 2 out
> of 10 or so).
> My inclination is to revert the original fix for PROTON-905 for now,
> until more detailed testing and investigation can be carried out. The
> fix prevents a build up of memory on long running connections where
> multiple sessions (and links) are opened then closed. As reported this
> only happens with older versions of the broker. In any case it does also
> have a workaround (albeit a very inconvenient one) of restarting the
> connection every so often, at which point the memory is freed.
> By contrast I don't understand enough about these crashes to suggest any
> workaround and the effects are more serious even for the latest broker.


Reply via email to