David Bremner writes:
> Ben Gamari writes:
>
>> We never checked to ensure that the rmtree() of the old database
>> succeeded.
>>
>
> Is there some reason these patches (and the existing compact code in the
> lib) is using fprintf and not the status callback function? Most places
> we don't
David Bremner da...@tethera.net writes:
Ben Gamari bgamari.f...@gmail.com writes:
We never checked to ensure that the rmtree() of the old database
succeeded.
Is there some reason these patches (and the existing compact code in the
lib) is using fprintf and not the status callback
Ben Gamari writes:
> We never checked to ensure that the rmtree() of the old database
> succeeded.
>
Is there some reason these patches (and the existing compact code in the
lib) is using fprintf and not the status callback function? Most places
we don't (yet) have logging callbacks, but here
Ben Gamari bgamari.f...@gmail.com writes:
We never checked to ensure that the rmtree() of the old database
succeeded.
Is there some reason these patches (and the existing compact code in the
lib) is using fprintf and not the status callback function? Most places
we don't (yet) have logging
We never checked to ensure that the rmtree() of the old database
succeeded.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gamari
---
lib/database.cc | 14 +-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/database.cc b/lib/database.cc
index 34753ab..bfc5dac 100644
--- a/lib/database.cc
+++
We never checked to ensure that the rmtree() of the old database
succeeded.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gamari bgamari.f...@gmail.com
---
lib/database.cc | 14 +-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/database.cc b/lib/database.cc
index 34753ab..bfc5dac 100644
---
