<quote who="Howard Chu"> > 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.
What's the overall impact to everything else code wise? "make test" will take half the time now though. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 824887 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotland. Registered number: SC258005. Registered office: 13 Whiteley Well Place, Inverurie, Aberdeenshire, AB51 4FP.
