On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 1:37 AM, brian m. carlson
sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi,
would FOSS Exception similar to
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ fix the
relicensing problem?
If so, I
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:33:41 +0200 Ondřej Surý wrote:
[...]
So the question remains - if I am to haggle with upstream, then what should
I propose?
In my own personal opinion?
I would recommend persuading upstream to switch back to the previous
BDB license (the one used up to Berkeley DB 5.3),
Hi,
would FOSS Exception similar to
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ fix the
relicensing problem?
If so, I will propose Oracle developers to add the FOSS Exception to
Berkeley DB licensing.
The MySQL FOSS Exception doesn't include 4-clause BSD, so it still might
bar
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi,
would FOSS Exception similar to
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ fix the
relicensing problem?
If so, I will propose Oracle developers to add the FOSS Exception to
Berkeley DB licensing.
The
* Scott Kitterman:
Sorry, I can't quite let this pass. I just went and looked at the
AGPL v3 again and one implication of the license is that you can't
locally fix a security issue without immediate disclosure. This
doesn't fit my personal ethics at all and at least IMO makes it
pretty
On 2013-07-10 13:06:47 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
If you modify the software you might get in trouble but, according to my
personal ethics, that's the trouble you should have. However, please
note that as long as you run the software only for yourself, you don't
have any problem. You
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:52:59 PM Howard Chu wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
This is a bit of a hassle, but worst case means that you cannot help
others with
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 01:06:47 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
This is a bit
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:18:12AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Sorry, I can't quite let this pass. I just went and looked at the AGPL v3
again and one implication of the license is that you can't locally fix a
security issue without immediate disclosure. This doesn't fit my personal
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute that
piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your right to
use it without obnoxious and potentially crippling restrictions.
Not right. You
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute
that piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your
right to use it without
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:03:20PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute that
piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your right to
use it
Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of 2013-07-10 08:28:54 -0700:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute
that piece of software,
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 09:20:37 AM Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of 2013-07-10 08:28:54 -0700:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
There is just one caveat: you must
Clint Byrum spam...@debian.org writes:
I do think AGPL complies with all of the clauses of the DFSG. There is
very little difference in an AGPLv3 licensed library as a GPLv3 licensed
library.
I agree from a licensing standpoint.
I think that, from a security standpoint, an AGPLv3 license on
* Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org [130710 13:07]:
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
This is a bit of a hassle,
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
Clint Byrum spam...@debian.org writes:
I do think AGPL complies with all of the clauses of the DFSG. There is
very little difference in an AGPLv3 licensed library as a GPLv3 licensed
library.
I agree from a licensing standpoint.
I
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:52:59 PM Howard Chu wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key size. Berkeley
* Philipp Kern:
On 2013-07-04 10:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Stefano Zacchiroli:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the
same
kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
* Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org [130704 09:24]:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the same
kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
software will have to face to
* Howard Chu:
LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key size. Berkeley
DB's disk format does not impose a limit on key or value size (at
least for B-trees). For
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key size. Berkeley
DB's disk format does not impose a limit on key or value size (at
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Bálint Réczey bal...@balintreczey.huwrote:
We could keep libdb-dev for the fork keeping the current license and create
a new set of development packages like libdb6-dev for the AGPLv3 code
with or without switching to an upstream different from Oracle.
And if
On 2013-07-04 10:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Stefano Zacchiroli:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the
same
kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
software will have
Hi Bradley, and thanks for your comments.
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:34:38AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
BTW, I'd suggest a rather unorthodox solution if developers are
interested: fork this AGPLv3'd version of BDB, and begin making
substantial improvements and changes under AGPLv3. That
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely
absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and make
everyone switch to a different overview method than do anything of the
sort.
I'm
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely
absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and
make everyone switch to a different overview
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be the
sole copyright holder of BerkelyDB. So unless they had copyright
assignments or
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org
wrote:
People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be the
sole
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely
absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and make
everyone switch to a different overview method than do
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:29:36PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
From my understanding, the other copyright holders' opinion doesn't
really matter – even
On 2013-07-04 09:23:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'm curious, can you elaborate on why as upstream you'd refuse to add
something like a protocol command that return a URL pointing to a
tarball containing the source code of the INN version the users are
running? At times, I'm really
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:08:33PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
What about users who patch and rebuild software locally?
That was the second paragraph of my post (that you snipped :)), i.e.:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
will be running a *modified*
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote at 03:14 (EDT):
So, I wonder, do we have any idea (due to them having already been
mentioned publicly elsewhere) about the craziest interpretation of
AGPL that the evil guys might come up with and, at the other end of
the spectrum, the most restrictive one?
AFAIK
Ondřej Surý wrote at 06:29 (EDT):
As far as I understand it – there are some parts in Berkeley DB source
code which is just BSD licensed (and the copyright holders are those
mentioned earlier)[1], then there are parts which were under SleepyCat
license and presumably the copyright holder for
* Stefano Zacchiroli:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the same
kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
software will have to face to uphold GPL (or equivalent)
Ondřej Surý wrote at 00:36 (EDT):
(d) Is it ok to switch 106 source packages and their reverse depends
to AGPLv3?
I think that might be stated a bit more clearly: you won't be changing
the license of the upstream works; you'd be changing the license of the
dowstream whole as it appears in
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
2) We need to pick the Berkeley DB version compatible with all
packages that use the library.
I think this is roughly the same issue as (1), unless you mean a
technical rather than a licensing issue.
It is a more
On 2013-07-04 15:00:05 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:08:33PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
What about users who patch and rebuild software locally?
That was the second paragraph of my post (that you snipped :)), i.e.:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to
2013/7/4 Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
2) We need to pick the Berkeley DB version compatible with all
packages that use the library.
I think this is roughly the same issue as (1), unless you mean a
technical rather than
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:58:34PM +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
concerns raised in this
Many people off-list have been asking me to comment on this discussion,
because (like Richard Fontana) I'm a co-author of AGPLv3, and I also
(back in the early 2000's) invented the original licensing idea behind
the AGPLv1.
I thus care deeply about the license and believe it's an important
policy
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
* Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org [130702 15:15]:
Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a
change in license?
Licenses matter. Just because something it acceptable for Debian
main does
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
On (b), I think the discussion about apt needing to be (effectively)
AGPLv3-or-later to continue using BDB is salient. I, for one, would
like to see such a thing, but I'm a biased party who co-authored AGPLv3
and believe in
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
If the relicensing is real and not another misconfiguration of the
build/release system (like with MySQL docs), this sounds like a
shakedown for proprietary users of Berkeley DB. GPLv2-licensed users
are collateral damage.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
If the relicensing is real and not another misconfiguration of the
build/release system (like with MySQL docs), this sounds like a
shakedown for
Bradley,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
[...]
Upon catching up on this thread, I believe most of what needs to be said
about the issue for Debian's perspective has been said. Nevertheless, I
do want to point out that I think three separate issues have
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change the
BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
56.html). This hasn't been reflected in release tarball (probably by
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:15:15AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a
change in license?
As algernon points out, it makes slightly more sense when you remember
that the AGPLv3 is not compatable with the GPLv2
I'm still against
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to
change the
BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (
https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 09:35 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:15:15AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a
change in license?
As algernon points out, it makes slightly more sense when you remember
that
]] Paul Tagliamonte
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
the
BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
56.html). This hasn't been reflected in release
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 09:44 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi,
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to
change the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3
(https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html). This
hasn't been reflected in release tarball (probably by
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
I think we should just keep libdb5.3 until a suitable replacement shows
up.
The OpenLDAP lightningdb might be a viable option: http://symas.com/mdb/
O.
--
Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (
https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html).
:
we (as the Debian project) need to take a decision.
:
Thanks Dan for this comprehensive email.
I'll take ITP bug for libmdb (#694757) under pkg-db umbrella, as it will
affect Berkeley DB, so it makes sense to have it there.
People are most welcome to join the team, as I am the only active person in
the team.
O.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:38 PM,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:36:57PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
apt-get is licensed GPLv2 and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
No, apt is GPL-2+.
cyrus-{imapd,sasl} has BSD-style license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
OpenLDAP has BSD-style (OpenLDAP) license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
(Written on my phone).
I have worked with original information from Florian's follow-up to transition
bug. Sorry for not checking apt license myself. Anyway... effectivelly
relicensing apt to GPL-3 might not be a problem for apt (and all its rev-deps),
but it is a still problem for all other
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your arguments
(e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) instead of presenting just the ad
hominem arguments. Thanks.
I am not a lawyer, though I work for lawyers. It
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
An AGPL licenced libdb isn't particularly useful for us, though. It'd
mean distributing a fair amount of software including exim, postfix,
squid, webalizer, dovecot and many other servers under the AGPL, which
would mean patching them so you could download the source
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams cl...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your
arguments (e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) instead of presenting just
the ad hominem
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams cl...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your
arguments (e.g. explain why
* Paul Tagliamonte:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
the
BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
56.html). This hasn't been reflected in release
Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org writes:
Just to clarify – I am not in any way opposed to the hereditary
properties of (A)GPL. The evil thing is the relicensing at the point
where people depend on you, and not the license itself.
I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
2013/7/2 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a
library. (For example, does that mean that every application using the
library has to provide a URL to download
On 2 July 2013 17:58, Nick Andrik nick.and...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/7/2 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a
library. (For example, does that mean that every
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Nick Andrik nick.and...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/7/2 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a
library. (For example, does that
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 18:58:34 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible
consideration to change to license
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:58:34PM +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible
consideration to change to license
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:20:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I don't believe I have spread any FUD.
[...]
2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license (
http://www.apache.org/
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:40:11 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Paul Tagliamonte:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
the
BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3
Le 02/07/2013 16:35, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
Thanks Dan for this comprehensive email.
I'll take ITP bug for libmdb (#694757) under pkg-db umbrella, as it will
affect Berkeley DB, so it makes sense to have it there.
People are most welcome to join the team, as I am the only active person
in
Dan Shearer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (
https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html).
:
we (as the Debian project) need to
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:20:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I don't believe I have spread any FUD.
[...]
2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license (http://www.apache.org/
licenses/GPL-compatibility.html)
Only in the same sense that GPL or LGPL (any version) is incompatible
with any
* Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org [130702 15:15]:
Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a
change in license?
Licenses matter. Just because something it acceptable for Debian
main does not mean it is a good idea to have something licensed under
a specific license.
* Julien Cristau:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 18:58:34 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible
consideration to
* Howard Chu:
We can provide plenty more documentation on LMDB performance and
reliability if desired.
Can you cope with incompletely written pages (e.g., only the first 512
bytes of a page is written) or write reordering between fsyncs?
Berkeley DB doesn't deal with torn writes, either, but
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
We can provide plenty more documentation on LMDB performance and
reliability if desired.
Can you cope with incompletely written pages (e.g., only the first 512
bytes of a page is written) or write reordering between fsyncs?
Berkeley DB doesn't deal with
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 21:53:45 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Previous versions of Berkeley DB have been released under the
Sleepycat license, which is actually a copyleft license.
Right, my bad. I forgot about that oddity.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Howard Chu:
We require that fsync() (actually fdatasync()) doesn't lie. Data pages
can be written in any order, as long as all outstanding data pages are
actually written by the time fsync returns. Given this constraint, you
can pull the power on a drive and the DB will still be fine.
And
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
We require that fsync() (actually fdatasync()) doesn't lie. Data pages
can be written in any order, as long as all outstanding data pages are
actually written by the time fsync returns. Given this constraint, you
can pull the power on a drive and the DB will
83 matches
Mail list logo
