https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9011
--- Comment #4 from code(a)doriantaylor.com ---
I was trying to determine why I got a notification for this bug, and I see now
that it was because I filed a later one which was marked duplicate.
Indeed, my remarks on issue 9188 constitute why a language binding would need
to know if a transaction was read-only. In the Ruby bindings for LMDB which I
now maintain, it's easy to find situations like
db.transaction(true, &proc) # `true` enables read-only
...where `proc` itself does another transaction. I have semi-fixed this so
read-only transactions "nest" by making the call a no-op if a transaction is
already active, but it's still possible for read-write transactions to find
their way inside read-only ones. So being able to create a `txn.readonly?`
predicate would be useful for programmers downstream to better orient
themselves.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
