On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:35:51 -0400, "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Wesley Craig wrote: > > On 23 Sep 2008, at 22:43, Bron Gondwana wrote: > >> That's my entire wishlist for 2.3.13 (plus the buffer size patch you > >> already included) > > > > I think there should be an RC2. > > > > I don't see: > > > > https://bugzilla.andrew.cmu.edu/show_bug.cgi?id=3075 > > > > included in RC1. I gathered that *was* on your wishlist for 2.3.13. > > Isn't this the fix that Bron said needs more discussion? Or am I > confusing it with something else.
As Wes said, this is the one that needs to go in! I haven't put the nested transaction stuff in Bugzilla yet, though it's in our running builds now. The biggest danger is that it allows unlimited depth, which means something that didn't commit or abort correctly ONCE would cause ALL later actions on that database to just be a nested item, and it would never actually commit anything. Subtle corruption bugs could occur. And I really want to put a "check no outstanding transactions" in the db close function :) > > . which looks for cases of MODSEQ being inappropriately set to 0 and > > correcting it to be 1. Several buggy versions were released into the > > wild, so it's quite likely that there are MODSEQ 0 mailboxes out there. > > Xfer-ing them to a machine with this code in place will correct the > > corruption. Xfer-ing them to a machine without this code in place > > causes sync_client to die. Interesting.. I thought I pushed a fix for this into 2.3.7 already, but maybe that was only to stop imapd crashing. Bron. -- Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED]
