Activity
From 06/16/2026 to 07/15/2026
07/15/2026
- 03:08 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> I fixed the regressions and some issues in trunk, details in #11625. I did a bit of a rework ... - 10:55 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I checked and this does not make much sense in 4gl also...
- 10:43 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- You are right, if the flush fails, the delete fails also. I will look for another solution.
- 10:00 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur, about the "flush before delete" - I think this may be problematic. The change exists only in memory until flu...
- 09:42 AM Bug #11573 (Review): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I fixed the regressions and some issues in trunk, details in #11625. I did a bit of a rework so the changes are bette...
- 03:49 AM Bug #11573 (WIP): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- There are some regressions in tests Constantin provided in #11625, working on a fix.
- 02:45 PM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- We need to move this ahead. If this is disabled by default, is it safe to merge?
- 02:50 AM Feature #9545: confirm/add table parameter support
- Rebased to trunk rev. 16656.
- 02:36 AM Feature #9545: confirm/add table parameter support
- Eduard, please rebase again and I'll move to full review and testing.
07/14/2026
- 01:08 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Ovidiu, thank you for catching these, I addressed the issues in rev 16647, please take a look again.
- 12:54 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- +Review of 11573b / r16646+
I was interested in balancing of the savepoints because of another task and I had a lo... - 11:43 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Actually, I'm in progress of doing it.
- 11:42 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Ovidiu: please review also.
- 11:26 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I can do another 2 projects besides etf. I will also ask for help with chui regression testing. If the review is posi...
- 11:19 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- What additional testing does this need, once it is reviewed?
- 08:51 AM Bug #11573 (Review): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- The problem was that rollback condition in SavepointManager.rollback() was too broad, trying to compensate for the fa...
- 03:43 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Yes, this is regressed by 11573b, thank you very much, Constantin.
07/13/2026
- 05:21 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Eduard, I think this is the recreate for the regression in 11573b:...
- 11:35 AM Feature #1585 (Closed): add conversion and runtime support for word indexes
- 11:34 AM Feature #5219: implement native full-text search for word index and CONTAINS support
- The idea of this task is to leverage the native database full-text-search capability. It could be implemented for on...
- 08:57 AM Feature #5220 (Closed): extend word index support to SQL Server
07/08/2026
- 11:09 AM Bug #11573 (WIP): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- 11573a was merged to trunk/16643 and custom branch rev 16429.
- 09:50 AM Bug #11573 (Merge Pending): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> I tested the multi tenant project, large gui application unit tests and etf, all passed.
You... - 09:45 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I tested the multi tenant project, large gui application unit tests and etf, all passed.
07/07/2026
- 08:46 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Done. Now 11573b contains all the changes and I will continue working on it, but 11573a conta... - 08:30 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Done. Now 11573b contains all the changes and I will continue working on it, but 11573a contains only the trigger rel...
- 08:24 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Constantin,
> The regression in ETF comes from the second set of changes, but rev 16622-166... - 08:12 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Constantin,
The regression in ETF comes from the second set of changes, but rev 16622-16623 addresses one of the is... - 02:34 AM Bug #11502: Recycle dirty share H2 session
- Artur tested with this branch and he confirmed that the testing on #10614 app has passed.
07/06/2026
- 08:43 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Thank you, Alex.
I will fix the test case, then retest etf, hopefully it will be enough. - 08:41 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur, I committed to testcases/1847 plenty of tests in @tests/persistence/flushing_validation/flush_pipeline_regress...
- 08:40 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Teodor Gorghe wrote:
> * *[MAJOR]* _functional_ @Block@.@rollback@ / @SavepointManager@.@rollback@: Removing the @tx...
07/02/2026
- 04:51 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> I could setup ETF and test myself, please let me know.
You can start doing the ETF setup, ... - 04:49 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I think the first finding is relevant because if I run the tests manually, it passes. I think there is something rela...
- 04:47 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- If this is going to be substantial effort on your part, I could setup ETF and test myself, please let me know.
- 04:45 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I still have not found the procedure because the test suite is large.
Please check the automated code review and s... - 03:14 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Teodor,
Please send me in private the 4gl sources for the failing test.
07/01/2026
- 03:13 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- There are some tests from ETF which has failed and these are unexpected.
Check @devsrv01:/tmp/tg.20260701/11573.zip@ - 08:12 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Chui regression tests passed, the only one left is ETF, which is tested by Teodor.
- 01:56 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Not, just the ones I mentioned. Should I continue with those?
Yes, please. - 01:56 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Not, just the ones I mentioned. Should I continue with those?
- 01:54 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Artur Școlnic wrote:
> > Another customer application: smoke tests will be done by Razvan to... - 01:53 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Another customer application: smoke tests will be done by Razvan tomorrow morning.
This on... - 09:15 AM Bug #11588: Implement a dedicated Query implementation for CAN-FIND
- The reason for me not to be that optimistic is that we did a good job previously 🤠, based on the existing constraints...
- 08:44 AM Bug #11588: Implement a dedicated Query implementation for CAN-FIND
- > There is no actual hydration of the record (as noted above, an empty (all fields nulls) is created if the record is...
- 08:33 AM Bug #11588: Implement a dedicated Query implementation for CAN-FIND
- To have a base to start from, I will describe current state.
For stand-alone function, there are two kind of it: u... - 08:19 AM Bug #11588: Implement a dedicated Query implementation for CAN-FIND
- From a conversion perspective, I would greatly prefer if we implement this similar to how we implement functions (e.g...
- 07:28 AM Bug #11588: Implement a dedicated Query implementation for CAN-FIND
- The goal is to achiave a different query implementation for CAN-FIND construct instead of leveraging the @FindQuery@ ...
- 07:19 AM Bug #11588 (New): Implement a dedicated Query implementation for CAN-FIND
06/30/2026
- 09:15 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Testing done for 11573a:
Multi tenant application: harness, performance and reports
Large gui application: unit tes... - 08:18 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> * What if you do a DO TRANSACTION (a sub-tx) in @proc0@?
no effect, just one savepoint ... - 07:47 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Oh, I was using the implicit buffer for the assign, not b-book.
> Anyway, the behavior is th... - 07:46 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Oh, I was using the implicit buffer for the assign, not b-book.
Anyway, the behavior is the same, there is only one ... - 07:38 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I used an inner procedure. Will test with an external one.
- 07:37 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> The procedure cannot update the record since the buffer has a no-lock. Seems like the trigger... - 07:35 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> in the mean time, please test:
> * what happens if you remove the trigger
Only one s... - 07:05 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Validation.flush
The described failure path is not quite right, when flushImpl fails, it rolls back its own savepoi... - 06:14 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- > Should i address those findings?
Please cross-check them. I will do a separate individual review my own. If you ... - 06:13 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Can I continue testing?
Yes, but in the mean time, please test:
* what happens if you remov... - 06:10 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Sorry, that was supposed to be a question :)
Should i address those findings? - 06:08 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Alex,
If you agree with those points, I will fix the issues AI found. - 06:06 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur, some AI observations:
* *[MAJOR]* _functional_ @Validation@.@flush@: @dmlSavepoint.complete()@ runs after t... - 05:50 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Can I continue testing?
- 05:40 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- start.p...
- 04:40 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- No, I will come up with one.
- 04:39 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Artur, do you have a standalone test which shows how these changes are used?
- 04:38 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Changed priority to reflect the urgency of the fix.
- 03:42 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Thank you, Ovidiu.
I will start testing while Constantin looks over the changes.
06/29/2026
- 06:37 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I have reviewed 11573a, 16622..16624. I think the solution might work.
Please fix the following code style issues... - 08:29 AM Bug #11573 (Review): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Ovidiu, Constantin,
The changes in rev 16624 are as follows:
Undoable DMO changes are still tracked immediately in... - 08:03 AM Bug #11573 (WIP): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Ovidiu, I saw that we eagerly set savepoints for undoable tracking, I am trying to improve that, please postpone the ...
- 02:16 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Ovidiu, please take a look again at rev 16623.
- 09:48 AM Bug #11569 (Review): Implement a finer grained invalidation for FastFindCache
- Alexandru,
The changes in 11569a are meant to:
Reduce unnecessary ffcache invalidation by retaining results that a... - 09:30 AM Bug #11576 (Review): Fix outer-join iteration handling for nullOuter.
- ...
06/26/2026
- 08:37 AM Bug #11576 (Internal Test): Fix outer-join iteration handling for nullOuter.
- I will upload @CompoundOuterJoinTest.cls@ to testcases project after I add few more variations.
*10803a* was rebas... - 08:01 AM Bug #11576: Fix outer-join iteration handling for nullOuter.
- This task covers the remaining outer-join query iteration issues that are not fixed by 10962a.
#10962 should addre... - 08:01 AM Bug #11576 (Review): Fix outer-join iteration handling for nullOuter.
- 07:12 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> PS: My comment was to remind of the origin for this savepoint. Radu, do you recall the task... - 05:52 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- PS: My comment was to remind of the origin for this savepoint. Radu, do you recall the task in which this happened? T...
- 05:51 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- > I will change Validation.flush() so it only creates the validation savepoint when there is actual DML pending.
T... - 02:38 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Ovidiu,
You are right, I think the fix is to first short circuit clean, already-persisted records. Then fire the tr... - 08:32 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- My first question is what happens if the trigger decides to reject the record using <code class="PHP">RETURN ERROR</c...
- 07:04 AM Bug #10962 (WIP): Optimized multi-table compound components are not invalidated
- Branch 10962a was merged to trunk rev 16623 and archived.
This is opened for assessing potential performance impro... - 07:00 AM Bug #10962 (Merge Pending): Optimized multi-table compound components are not invalidated
- POC testing passed.
ETF testing passed.
Preparing to merge. - 09:56 PM Feature #10491: Tool to standardize PG cluster creation
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> After re-reviewing the script in r16624 I did not see anything wrong, except:
> * the depe...
06/25/2026
- 07:55 PM Feature #10491: Tool to standardize PG cluster creation
- After re-reviewing the script in r16624 I did not see anything wrong, except:
* the dependency on @startup_pg.sh@. T... - 10:16 AM Feature #10491: Tool to standardize PG cluster creation
- I rebased *10491a* and verified @fwd_create_pg_cluster.sh@ matches up with the lastest from the *container* project. ...
- 01:52 PM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Ovidiu, please also take a look. Changes make sense for me.
- 01:48 PM Bug #11573 (Review): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- I committed the solution to 11573a, in the end it was a corner case where a trigger flushed and validated a record, t...
- 09:38 AM Bug #11573 (WIP): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- 09:38 AM Bug #11573: Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- Profiling a client's application write heavy scenario showed that we are setting and immediately releasing savepoints...
- 09:33 AM Bug #11573 (Test): Remove unnecessary JDBC savepoint during validation
- 05:02 AM Bug #11502 (Internal Test): Recycle dirty share H2 session
- Teodor, I'm OK with the changes. Please rebase and also test with #10614 app.
- 04:57 AM Bug #11502 (Review): Recycle dirty share H2 session
- 04:57 AM Bug #11502 (WIP): Recycle dirty share H2 session
- Committed revision *16600* on task branch *11502a*:
* Pool H2 dirty-share database connection.
*Constantin*, plea... - 04:49 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Smoke testing and stress testing of a customer app with 11526a did not reveal any regressions.
06/24/2026
- 10:39 AM Bug #11569: Implement a finer grained invalidation for FastFindCache
- This issue is dedicated to optimizing the FFC invalidation, specifically the full index/table invalidation that can b...
- 10:35 AM Bug #11569 (WIP): Implement a finer grained invalidation for FastFindCache
- 10:34 AM Bug #11569 (Review): Implement a finer grained invalidation for FastFindCache
- 04:06 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Performance for the #11477 scenario (with added 0.5ms latency) is ...
06/23/2026
- 02:45 PM Feature #11526 (Internal Test): Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Very well!
Let's get it tested and profiled, to see if it works correctly and improves performance, not regress it. - 12:39 PM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- I addressed the other concerns, Ovidiu, please review rev 16611.
- 12:26 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> * @BloomFilterHashUtils.java@
> ** line 159: I still think this is *not correct*: notice... - 04:47 AM Bug #10962: Optimized multi-table compound components are not invalidated
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> Stefanel, please help with testing:
>
> * please test the other application REST API tes...
06/22/2026
- 04:51 PM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- +Review of 11526a, r16609+
I think you are on the right track. The issues previously reported look fixed. I see ot... - 09:18 AM Feature #11526 (Review): Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- I made the changes, now the filters are initialized async on the first validation, until it is fully initialized, it ...
- 06:14 AM Bug #10962 (Internal Test): Optimized multi-table compound components are not invalidated
- > Hmm, I think that query.getTableCount() == 1 && limitation can be lifted, in order to avoid setting the reference r...
06/18/2026
- 03:59 PM Bug #11552: Stale data with write trigger.
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> The @doBlock@ itself will not mark the record as @STALE@, just @CHANGED@. Clearly, a secon... - 03:35 PM Bug #11552: Stale data with write trigger.
- I tried to track it back, but something is missing. A link.
The @doBlock@ itself will not mark the record as @STAL... - 02:33 PM Bug #11552: Stale data with write trigger.
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Eduard, do you have a standalone test for this? Or these are just observations from deb... - 02:03 PM Bug #11552: Stale data with write trigger.
- Eduard, do you have a standalone test for this? Or these are just observations from debugging?
- 11:46 AM Bug #11552: Stale data with write trigger.
- Lets suppose we will have a buffer scoped to transactional block. As finalizables of this block the will be register...
- 11:18 AM Bug #11552 (New): Stale data with write trigger.
06/17/2026
- 08:56 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Artur, rebuild the index at FWD server must be done concurrently (the runtime will work without the filter, and the f...
- 08:53 AM Feature #11526 (WIP): Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- 08:52 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Ok, I was reluctant to go with this approach since it would cripple the server on startup for an undetermined amount ...
- 07:44 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> > * consistency - always rebuilt on server startup, while feeding records from the database t... - 07:38 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> * degradation - there are cases where a physical table is used as a temp-table - data is... - 07:16 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- If you have an early implementation, we need some serious stress-testing, for 100s of millions of records, where mult...
- 07:13 AM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Artur, these are some notes after having a discussion with Ovidiu:
* degradation - there are cases where a physical ... - 04:37 AM Feature #6720: lazy hydration
- Committed with the fix for #6720-179 in +6720b/r16636+.
06/16/2026
- 05:30 PM Feature #11526: Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- +Review of 11526a, r16607+
*I.* I see you have radically changed the way the hash is computed. I see it is closer ... - 09:21 AM Feature #11526 (Review): Implement in-memory uniquness validation using Bloom filters
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> ** lines 311, 342: not having default values will make configuration difficult. What shou... - 10:21 AM Feature #10436: Detect Sequential Data Access and Prefetch Records from the Database
- We could detect at runtime and record hints based on this. Those hints could then change how we convert.
- 09:25 AM Feature #10436: Detect Sequential Data Access and Prefetch Records from the Database
- I finished a prototype implementation, it detects when a find unique query is being iterated, meaning that the same s...
- 05:35 AM Bug #11502: Recycle dirty share H2 session
- Generally speaking I would expect the dirty db to be less strained than the primary one due to the limited scope of t...
- 05:28 AM Bug #11502: Recycle dirty share H2 session
- I don't think cloning *shared primary db* / *tenant primary db* config because of #11502-12.
Dirty DB connections ... - 04:50 AM Bug #11502: Recycle dirty share H2 session
- Teodor, the shared db has a directory config, it can be used for the dirty shared db. The tenant private databases ha...
- 04:47 AM Bug #11502: Recycle dirty share H2 session
- A quick reminder about the question from #11502-12.
#11502 is not a critical issue, but the performance is a bit w... - 04:00 AM Feature #6720: lazy hydration
- Committed revision *16635* on task branch *6720b*:
* Implemented runtime feedback field usage feature which decides ... - 02:36 AM Feature #6720: lazy hydration
- Rebased *6720b* to trunk rev *16603*. Latest revision is *16632*.
A copy of old *6720b* is in @devsrv01:/tmp/tg.2026...
Also available in: Atom