[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3198?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12546665
]
Dyre Tjeldvoll commented on DERBY-3198:
---------------------------------------
If we go for the separate member variable option; do we really need to free
this Section? If/when we start using this to cache session data, that Section
will be needed for every message, so requesting it and freeing it each time is
just going to be extra work, isn't it? Or would that have some other drawback
that I'm not seeing? I'm running the tests with this change now, to see how it
works.
> Using setQueryTimeout will leak sections
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3198
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3198
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JDBC, Network Client
> Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
> Reporter: Dyre Tjeldvoll
> Assignee: Dyre Tjeldvoll
> Attachments: derby-3198.v1.diff, derby-3198.v2.diff, repro.diff
>
>
> The implementation of setQueryTimeout relies on
> NetStatementReply.writeSetSpecialRegister() which will allocate a dynamic
> section when called. No reference to this Section object is kept, and so
> Section.free() never gets called on it. Executing the same statment
> repeatedly with a query timeout set results in the client driver throwing an
> exception because the number of Sections exceeding 32000.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
