[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (ITS#7974) LDBM's "laggard reader" flaw still present, in continue of ITS#7904

On 12/04/2014 11:31 AM, leo@yuriev.ru wrote:
> Could you suggest something other instead of "oomkiller"?

Don't have a particularly good idea.  oom_func, maybe.

>> This feature could make it interesting to let readers and writers
>> tell each other things: Reserve some unused space in the reader
>> table slots for stuff the reader's caller could put there, and
>> some space for an impatient writer to leave a note.  Could go
>> in an independent commit if there is any demand for it though.
> Communications between readers and writers may be interesting, but I
> think it is over-engineering in the LMDB context.

Yes... I guess I was thinking mostly of the prototype, in case we
want to add something like it later.  Might be useful to add a void*
argument which would be NULL now but could be used later, if needed.