Folks,
I've run onto what looks like a Derby multithreading bug, but before
submitting it to JIRA I thought I'd give this list a chance to comment.
I did a keyword search, but it is possible that this has been reported
or is commonly known. Is the EmbeddedDriver even expected to be thread
safe
mmented: (DERBY-2480) DriverManager.getConnection leaks
memory using EmbeddedDriver on non-existent database
Jeffrey Clary wrote:
> Thanks for the review. This is the first time I have contributed any code
> (one line ;-) to Derby. At this point will the fix be picked up by a
> submitter
I've been reading at thread on this list discussing a 10.3 release
candidate in early May. Are there any 10.2.x fix releases planned
between now and then?
Thanks,
Jeff
Thanks for the review. This is the first time I have contributed any code (one
line ;-) to Derby. At this point will the fix be picked up by a submitter or
is there something else I need to do to make sure it gets into the next release?
-Original Message-
From: John H. Embretsen (JIRA
ant.properties file? If you have not done so can you do it
> and run derbyall again and check if you are getting the failures you
> have mentioned?
>
> My guess is you have not built with jdk16 variable but are trying to
> run the tests with 1.6.
>
> Can you please confirm th
I could use some hints getting my basic build/test environment set up.
I am getting the code as documented using "svn co
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/code/trunk derby" and building
successfully. I invoke ant all, ant testing, and ant buildjars without
errors.
I'm trying to run the de
experience.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:24 PM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible problem in
org.apache.derby.impl.store.access.BackingStoreHashTableFromScan
Jeffrey Clary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
&g
e process where they
are cleaned up - is that currently keyed by commit?
3) Are you interested in a workaround? If the hash got created in
memory rather than disk then this would probably work. I think
there are some flags to force bigger in memory hash result sets.
Jeffrey Clary wrote:
>
Folks,
I'm new to Derby and to these lists, so I'm not sure what I am reporting
is a bug or expected behavior. You can see an earlier question I asked
on the derby-user list 3/15/2007 titled "Heap container closed exception
(2 statements on same connection)."
I am not seeing the behavior I
