I agree with all the data we have so far none of us can weigh whether DERBY-3962 is worse than DERBY-4331 or vice-versa. However, we know 10.5.2.0 fix DERBY-3962 and it has DERBY-4331. However, DERBY-4331 has a ugly work around by Calling SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_UPDATE_STATISTICS on the tables involved. We have a handle on simpler repro case with three tables join and one subquery join with two tables (repro script by Mamba). Do we have to make a decision now? I will think wait for one more day will give us time to have better handle on DERBY-4331.
Thanks, Lily ________________________________ From: Rick Hillegas <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 10:05:30 AM Subject: Re: DERBY-4331 and the 10.5.2.0 release Hi Kathey, Thanks for release-managing 10.5.2.0 and for proposing a next step. Another option would be: 1) You can give 10.5.2.0 to your users who need the fix to DERBY-3962 2) But remove 10.5.2.0 from the Apache website 3) Back out the fix for DERBY-3962 and spin a 10.5.2.1 RC 3) Continue to work on 10.5.3, which would fix DERBY-3962 and DERBY-4331. Vetting for the RC could be expedited and take, say, a week. It seems to me that the reactions to this email thread were mostly negative. I don't know that any of us can weigh whether DERBY-3962 is worse than DERBY-4331 or vice-versa. My sense is that DERBY-3962 is not really fixed and the problem was simply shifted elsewhere--I do not believe this regression would have been allowed if it had been noticed earlier. Thanks, -Rick Kathey Marsden wrote: > Mike Matrigali wrote: >> Kathey Marsden wrote: >>> Knut identified a wrong results regression in 10.5.2.0, DERBY-4331. I >>> normally would not want to make a release with a known wrong results >>> regression, but am not quite sure what to do with 10.5.2.0. The vote >>> closed and passed. The release has been posted to the website, but no >>> announcement has been made. Should we continue with the release or try to >>> abort and make another release candidate? > 10.5.2.0 fixes 8 regression fixes that we know some users have already > picked up. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&customfield_12310200=Regression&fixfor=12314116&resolution=1&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC > > > It also has many other useful fixes. > > If we restart 10.5.2, my guess is it will take about 4 weeks. Two to fix > DERBY-4331 and two to restart the vote and test cycle. The fix may take > longer since of course we don't know much yet. > > If we post 10.5.2.0 and start immediately on a 10.5.3.0, we could hopefully > get it out in about 6 weeks. Four weeks for bug fixing and two for the vote > and testing. > > I think a stern warning on the 10.5.2.0 will help mitigate any problems from > DERBY-4331 and allow users to make their own choice and possibly benefit from > the fixes in 10.5.2.0. Mike mentioned that perhaps there will be a > workaround for DERBY-4331, to add extra columns to the order by. If that is > the case we could post that too. > > I think we have educated users who given the proper information can decide > for themselves whether to wait for 10.5.3 if given sufficient information. > If I hear no objections I will continue with the 10.5.2.0 release process > this afternoon. > > Kathey > >
