On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:12:05AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 2/28/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If this was a flag to apr_sdbm_open, or was modified to interact with > >the existing locking logic, I'd have much more faith that this is > >a reasonable approach.
The caller could already pass in APR_BUFFERED in the mode parameter to apr_sdbm_open(), AFAICS. > I would appreciate it if you present a specific case where this breaks > something rather than vague generalities about how it might break > something. As I said earlier, I view this as a very low-risk change > as SDBM uses APR's file locking semantics and doesn't support > concurrent reader/writer combinations. If you want that facility via > BDB, you need newer versions of BDB (and even that tends to barf all > over itself on load). I have very little trust in the buffered I/O code, people have been very fixing basic bugs in it all through 1.2.x, and there are a couple more reported in bugzilla already. So I wouldn't call this low-risk. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40963 could easily affect sdbm. joe
