Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:22 PM -0700 Howard Chu<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thinking about it some more, we can still salvage back-bdb, but it will
require a change in the dn2id index format. The only thing that bothers
me about this is that once you start down the path of making "sensible"
changes to back-bdb's dn2id format, you eventually arrive at back-hdb
anyway, so again, is it really worth the effort...
Maybe we just deprecate it, tell everyone to move off of BDB 4.2.52 at the
same time, and rework back-hdb to work with BDB 4.7's new locking stuff.
Honestly it seems like a bit of work to go to, to save a backend that's
already been obsoleted.
Sounds about right to me. Of course, we knew that back-bdb's dn2id index was a
problem 'way back in the beginning...
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200112/msg00118.html
and we knew that back-hdb didn't have these problems. And we've talked about
dropping back-bdb in favor of back-hdb several times through the years. It
seems now is the time.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
