[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: index corruption (1164) still present in 2.0.15 with db 3.1.17 (ITS#1359)
At 02:14 PM 2001-09-29, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 10:51:10AM -0700, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>> At 10:39 AM 2001-09-29, email@example.com wrote:
>> >The good news is that there was no index curruption with gdbm!
>> Yes, the problems appear to be limited to use of Berkeley
>> DB's Concurrent DB API.
>> >I will try a db-3.3.11 version of ldbm now and report back.
>> If you have problems, try undefining HAVE_BERKELEY_DB_THREAD
>> (portable.h). This will disable use of the Concurrent DB API
>> and should resolve the problem (at the expense of concurrency).
>Hmm... configure left HAVE_BERKELEY_DB_THREAD undefined so I guess
>I can't test what would have happened. In any case my 70 ops left
>the index in great shape!
I am curious as to why HAVE_BERKELEY_DB_THREAD is undefined
and, if it were defined, whether the problem exists.
Can you examine config.log and determine why HAVE_BERKELEY_DB_THREAD
is not set when using DB 3.3.11?