[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: back-bdb deadlocks?
David Boreham wrote:
I would never be so ambitious. But as you can see, it's only 4 lines of
changes. The desired functionality is already present in BDB, there's
just no convenient user-level access to it. My patch provides that API
access. I've also submitted the patch to Sleepycat (bug#10619) so
hopefully it or something similar will be available in the near future.
I guess I was thinking about the packaging issues in requiring
a patched libdb. Also, did Keith say the change is safe ?
There might be side effects of enabling and disabling logging
within the same DB that you haven't found yet. (I'm not saying
that there _are_, just that if I were making that change I'd want
to be sure that there aren't).
I note that I posted the back-bdb patch to this list, rather than
committing it to the OpenLDAP CVS, precisely because we cannot impose
such a requirement. It's here for informational purposes until we see
what our friends at Sleepycat have to say.
The BDB patch doesn't disable logging for a DB or DB environment. There
are already APIs for that but that's too coarse-grained for our purpose.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support