https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8537
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
Didn't see any crash in current mdb.master3,
9aa3ac00567db8d5222abea46325a8b882937350
I see EINVAL on case 9 with the test program, trying to use MDB_GET_CURRENT
after and MDB_SET_KEY that returned MDB_NOTFOUND. This appears to be correct
behavior, since the cursor isn't pointing at anything when MDB_NOTFOUND is
returned.
On the reported commit ID, the test program asserts on case 0, but that doesn't
appear to be relevant any more.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9011
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
Why does a wrapper or binding care whether a txn is read-only or read-write?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8275
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
I don't see why this is necessary or useful. The caller supplied the name in
the first place, why do they need to ask for it back?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8502
--- Comment #2 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Hallvard Furuseth from comment #0)
> Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth
> Version: mdb.master, 26e226b2a8cdba4208eabca394537900c4eda3b3
> OS:
> URL:
> Submission from: (NULL) (81.191.45.31)
> Submitted by: hallvard
>
>
> mdb_cursor_count() has code to return MDB_NOTFOUND if !mc_snum,
> but it comes after if (! ... C_INITIALIZED) return EINVAL.
It sounds like the NOTFOUND test should just be deleted then, because
it's always unreachable.
When a DB is emptied, all cursors on it are de-initialized since there is
nothing for the cursors to point to. In an uninitialized cursor, none of the
other state is meaningful, so mc->mc_snum is irrelevant.
Changing the order of the tests would mean you get MDB_NOTFOUND even on a
cursor on a non-empty DB, if it has never been used yet. Is that actually a
more sensible result in that case?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8455
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 8209 ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8209
--- Comment #10 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
*** Issue 8455 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8590
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Summary|LMDB: Suppress SIGPIPE in |LMDB: Suppress SIGPIPE in
|mdb_env_copythr on OS X |mdb_env_copythr on OS X
Resolution|--- |TEST
--- Comment #4 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
Committed to git mdb.master / mdb.RE/0.9 / mdb.master3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9099
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |SUSPENDED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9027
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |TEST
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=9475
--- Comment #5 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
In mdb.master3 63698faf2c159136443e5e3c07541201fca5ee71
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9475
Issue ID: 9475
Summary: Add support for MAP_POPULATE
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: aa531811820(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
In some case (such as cloud computing platforms), the reading speed of large
files is very fast while the small files is very slow, and we have enough
memory, so we hope to prefetch the entire LMDB file into the memory during MMAP
through the MAP_POPULATE flag . According to our test, this is faster than
using readahead flag. Here are some test data:
# mmap with no readahead
read one sample: 0.2s
total time: 4800s
# mmap with readahead
read one sample: 0.0001s~0.03s
total time: 95.86s
# mmap with MAP_POPULATE
db init: 20s
read one sample: 0.0001s
total time: 78s
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.