Re: back-bdb deadlocks?

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

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