Re: Fwd: Re: DB_LOG_AUTOREMOVE: how does it work?

["Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>]

>>
> OK, here's another idea for the back-bdb/cache.c patch - if using BDB
> 4.2.52 it tries the alternate flag first. If it fails, it logs the
> failure and reverts to running without the alternate flag. Or, we can
> just let it fail and have slapd shutdown instead, and require people to
> patch their BDB library.

Personally, I alway suggest to apply the currently available patches, and
I always deploy patched versions of slapd with db-4.2.52, but I wouldn't
agree with __requiring__ BerkeleyDB to be patched for a number of reasons,
including the fact that the patch actually isn't official, so customers
might prefer to live with an official db-4.2.52 as far as they're aware of
the limitations it implies.  In fact, we can surely live without that
patch, provided we periodically shut the service down.  In this case a
stock db-4.2.52 would perfectly fit every need without any patch.

I strongl agree with slapd trying to detect at compile/run-time if the
db-4.2.52 is pched or not, and with logging the result.  We could have the
behavior you envisaged as the default (i.e. slapd refusing to run with a
non-patched db-4.2.52), with a switch that allows the conscious admin to
work it around (i.e. some "live-with-unpatched-db" config parameter).

p.

-- 
Pierangelo Masarati
mailto:pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it


    SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497