[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21

To: OpenLDAP <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject: Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21
From: "matthew sporleder" <msporleder@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:38:46 -0400
Content-disposition: inline
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kmxIOloPUEDpk/9yvIUOVVCorXU8NyWnQiu1fwJiZjbkJ0AH4IAqXTfN1aN9FaRrBndQ6RTL4jsAm7wvCK6guqmwfXaGUAI/sa1JM+46COJKePoAW/9HjlN96q2bCOEGbykUxRF9TjUu3T/S/cUGxa1OxHh+MFUlxrsyVBgdfVo=
In-reply-to: <b0459d5c0604121233gb3068edh3ac9f5d0aae08dc9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b0459d5c0604121233gb3068edh3ac9f5d0aae08dc9@mail.gmail.com>

(You'd think I would know by now)
I'm running openldap 2.3.21, bdb 4.4.20, and solaris 10.

On 4/12/06, matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 658149 local6.debug]
> ldbm_back_db_open: alock package is unstable; database may be
> inconsistent!
> Apr 11 15:21:22 labogldir02 slapd[16232]: [ID 100111 local6.debug]
> slapd starting
>
>
> Can I get a status on alock for LDBM?
>
> According to:
> http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/servers/slapd/alock.c?hideattic=1&sortbydate=0
>
> it looks like ldbm is having some alock rethinks.  Should I wait for
> ldbm to be re-stabilized in 2.3.x?
>
> Thanks,
> _Matt
>

References:
- alock + ldbm in 2.3.21
  - From: "matthew sporleder" <msporleder@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: CPPFLAGS=-DFD_SETSIZE=8192
Next by Date: Re: alock + ldbm in 2.3.21
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread