On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:
>> Hm. I don't know if it was intentional to ignore POSKeyErrors in the
>> old pack code. It seems like a bad idea to me.
> Yep, I was wondering if that was a conscious design choice or just
> accidental behavior.
>> What do folks think about this? Should missing records be ignored? Or
>> should the missing record cause the pack (or maybe just GC) to fail?
> Mmh, I think having the pack succeed would be nice. It can sometimes
> take a while until you can fix those PosKeyErrors. Not everyone has
> the skill to do that. Preventing the ZODB from growing indefinitely
> during that time would be nice.
> But doing GC on an inconsistent state is probably a bad idea.
Then I think the current behavior is correct. You can now disable GC
using the pack-gc option:
which will allow you to pack away old revisions while you research the
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org