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

Re: OpenLDAP sync code

At 01:27 PM 6/14/2001, Randy Kunkee wrote:
>Mark Whitehouse has taken my old periodic sync patch and implemented it
>for 2.0.7, and we are currently working to get it working for 2.0
>Engineering (and eventually the head development branch).

>In this work, he has also corrected the fact that dbcachesize does
>not work correctly with Berkeley DB.

This should be fixed in HEAD and OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2.

>He is also working on code
>to make use of transactions in Berkeley/Sleepycat DB.

I hope this is based upon the back-bdb work...  the main thing
needed is indexing support.  I made a start of rewriting the
index code, but got bogged with other stuff.  Likely the best
thing to do now is just to port the LDBM indexing code over
to back-bdb.

>I have several questions I want to ask about how to proceed.
>1. Is there any objection to adding the periodic sync feature to the
>code base?  The new version is enabled via the config file.

Well, I would rather see back-bdb worked on... but if there are
simple changes we can make to prolong the usefulness of back-ldbm,
I won't object.

I would also prefer the sync changes not require --with-threads.

>2. I understand that patches want to be kept separate.  However, in this
>case, since they are related, is there any objection to submitting the
>sync patch together with the fix for calling set_cachesize?

Given that set_cachesize should be fixed, this should be moot.
However, if still broken, I prefer separate patches as I rather
no have to split them later for release engineering needs.
Any set_cachesize bug fix is likely to progress into OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2
much faster than a new sync feature (and certainly faster than
transaction code).

>3. The patch is somewhat complicated with getting all the #if
>DB_VERSION_MAJOR tests etc. working correctly and testing with earlier
>versions of Berkeley DB.  In my ideal world, I'd prefer to copy the
>back-ldbm work into a new directory, ie. back-bdb3, rip out all of the
>#ifdef's for < version 3, and march on from there.  I've heard of work
>before on a bdb3 version, perhaps intending to write it from scratch.
>Would we be duplicating work by doing this? 

If you are not enhancing back-bdb, then yes.

>Is there any objection to
>using the "back-bdb3" subdirectory off of servers?  I've been away from
>the project for a while so forgive me if this has been discussed in the
>mailing lists.

As we already have a back-bdb which is Berkeley DB 3 (latest)
specific, so, yes.  Let's figure out how you and Mark can pick up
the back-bdb work.

>Randy Kunkee