[Lalo Martins] >>> A few days later, we realized that pack wasn't working anymore
[Tim Peters] >> What does "wasn't working" mean? ... [Lalo] > sorry for not giving detail here, I figured it would be obvious. > > During the clock skew, the database was packed at least once. Believe me when I say that wasn't obvious ;-) > So after time returned to normal, packing refuses to run, claiming "the > database was already packed at a later time". That makes sense. >> Which version of ZODB are you using? ZODB always intended that tids be >> monotonically increasing, but some older versions have known bugs where >> that can be violated. > That's a Zope 2.7.3; I'm pretty sure it doesn't have these bugs (judging > from the research I did before posting). That's ZODB 3.2.4, then. 3.2.9 is current. The specific bug I had in mind was collector issue 1327, and that was repaired in 3.2.3. ... >> You didn't tell us anything about what your packing fix did ... > It considers timestamps in the future as infinitely old; so in a > hypotetical database where all transactions are in the future, it would > copy only "reachable" transactions. Offhand that makes sense. It would be interesting to figure out why it didn't pack anything, but don't have spare time for that ... ... >> In fact, while I haven't tried this, I _suspect_ that changing [to] >> >> self.tpc_begin(transaction, None, transaction.status) >> ^^^^ >> [in copyTransactionsFrom() would suffice] > this, however, I didn't find by myself; thanks a lot :-) Do let us know whether it worked! _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
