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

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
http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support