On Dienstag 17 März 2009 Paul J Stevens wrote: > > Wouldn't a single physmessage_id entry be enough in > > dbmail_datefield? If yes, the index dbmail_datefield_1, which > > currently is UNIQUE (physmessage_id, id) could be changed to UNIQUE > > (physmessage_id). > > Sounds good. > > > And the same goes for dbmail_datefield I suppose, and maybe others > > also. Paul, if you say I'm right I'd deliver SQL statements to > > cleanup maybe existing mess, and change indices. But I could be > > wrong, so I wait for your reply. > > Please do.
Do you think there will ever be a patch in the 2.2 series to apply my changes? I think no, as 2.2 is end-of-life from devs pov. So I wonder if it's worth the effort at all. But that changes could help find bugs like this one, as the db will complain on duplicate indices. > > Back to the original search: There is no subjectfield value in > > those 3 messages, so no subject gets inserted. And that makes > > dbmail-util never successful in its cleanup. Maybe a "" subject > > should be inserted for messages that don't have it? > > Correct, a perfectly valid empty subject shouldn't lead to any kind > of failure. Does that mean it will be worked on? Should I file a bug report? mfg zmi -- // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ DBmail mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
