This demonstrates the difference between commercial/professionally run products and what can be a very ad hoc management style for open products.
A commercial organization receives a DR and reviews it. The DR is assigned a priority and a severity. Being obscure and performance related, I'd guess that it scored low on both. It doesn't impact security, it doesn't rear its ugly head often. So it won't impact many users, and presumably, the impact won't be that great. As such, and assuming that you have limited resources devoted to a product, it doesn't exactly float to the top of the heap.
But from the standpoint of code, the defect *might* be interesting! And in a looser environment, interesting trumps utility. Also, the impacted source might be more isolated... meaning to the volunteer "dive right in" developer, it is a more attractive problem to handle.
I'm not trying to defend Oracle or condemn the MariaDB team. I'm using this as an example of how different development processes and practices (highly managed/cathedral vs. open-uncommitted/bazaar) might yield different results. And how different group goals (further integration of MySQL into the Oracle family vs. ??? for MariaDB) might impact where efforts are place.