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: <filestorage> pack-gc false ... which will allow you to pack away old revisions while you research the POSKeyError issue. Jim -- Jim Fulton _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev