In other words, the patch seems to provide significant improvement to Derby robustness with regards to cases where statements are not always explicitly closed by the application using the Derby client. The garbage collector is able to collect much more garbage with the patch than without.
This is *excellent* news! Can you tell, at this point, whether there is a secondary leak that we must additionally pursue? That is, does it seem as though, if we are able to incorporate the DERBY-210 fixes into the base product, we will be able to run DOTS without memory exhaustion errors? I guess what I'm asking is: what duration of test, with the patch applied, would be enough to satisfy us that there are no additional memory leaks exposed by this test? thanks, bryan
