[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: "Allow backup" extended operation
[Sorry if this message is duplicated]
Howard Chu writes:
> I think this is a bit of overkill. One of the reasons for developing
> back-bdb was to have a backend that supports hot backups... Since this
> facility exists, and back-ldbm is no longer getting any new features
> implemented, I don't see any reason to do anything further.
Except...we need ldbm here, becuase it supports aliases:-(
I don't know the alias code... why is is it enclosed in
'#ifdef BDB_ALIASES'? Would it be much work to fix it?
Or should it be thrown out and rewritten from scratch?