[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: LMBD questions (stat & copy)
Bruno Freudensprung wrote:
Thank you very much for your patient answers, and my apologies for my late reply.
The "reserved space" was indeed occupied by the FREE_DBI, thanks again for pointing this out for me.
Since I will have hundreds of envs (of unpredictable size) in my application,
Sounds like a misuse. For hundreds of tables you should be using individual
named DBs within a single env. The point is to use a single env and not have
to worry about hundreds of configuration details.
I am a bit reluctant in allocating too much space for all of them, and that's why I was trying to find a way emit a warning when room is about to lack. In this regard I think I have read something very promising in the docs: the mt_next_pgno field of the txn. It looks perfect. Do you think it would be safe to expose it in a read-only way?
In any case I will follow you advice and try to find a safe compromise for the map size.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/