Fwd: Question regarding MDB_NOLOCK

[David Barbour <dmbarbour@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com> wrote:

My earlier assumption (before reading mdb_page_alloc) was that LMDB
would be aggressive about grabbing pages freed by transactions that are
not actively being read. If we're relying on `last < oldest` to create a
two page discrepancy, this means when we actually have readers on older
transactions that we're being little more conservative than necessary.

More than necessary? I don't think so.

You'll conserve exactly one more transaction's free pages than necessary in the case where a reader-lock exists on any transaction older than the most recent snapshot.