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

Re: back-bdb flaw

<quote who="Howard Chu">
> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> --On Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:22 PM -0700 Howard Chu<hyc@symas.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Thinking about it some more, we can still salvage back-bdb, but it will
>>> require a change in the dn2id index format. The only thing that bothers
>>> me about this is that once you start down the path of making "sensible"
>>> changes to back-bdb's dn2id format, you eventually arrive at back-hdb
>>> anyway, so again, is it really worth the effort...
>> Maybe we just deprecate it, tell everyone to move off of BDB 4.2.52 at
>> the
>> same time, and rework back-hdb to work with BDB 4.7's new locking stuff.
>> Honestly it seems like a bit of work to go to, to save a backend that's
>> already been obsoleted.
> Sounds about right to me. Of course, we knew that back-bdb's dn2id index
> was a
> problem 'way back in the beginning...
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200112/msg00118.html
> and we knew that back-hdb didn't have these problems. And we've talked
> about
> dropping back-bdb in favor of back-hdb several times through the years. It
> seems now is the time.

What's the overall impact to everything else code wise? "make test" will
take half the time now though.

Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.

T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghenry@suretecsystems.com

Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).


Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered
number: SC258005. Registered office: 13 Whiteley Well Place, Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 4FP.