Re: back-bdb concurrency

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 03:27 PM 3/4/2003, Jonghyuk Choi wrote:
>>With shared locks in BDB, it has been possible for multiple processes to
>>operate on the same database at once. I frequently took advantage of this
>>running slapadd while slapd is running. But with IDL caching in the
>current
>>back-bdb, this is no longer advisable for slapadd, as there is no means in
>>slapd to detect that the underlying IDLs have changed. slapcat is still
>>safe...
>
>Thanks for pointing out this.
>I first considered comparing the numbers of IDs in memory and DB IDL.
>Because bdb_idl_fetch_key is on the critical path, a single c_get and
>c_count
>to get the DB IDL size affects search performance. For the most cases where
>slapadd is run not so frequently, how about having a signal based solution
>? ...
>making slapd invalidate its idl cache upon receiving a signal from slapadd
>.

Or just require a gentle hangup...

Kurt