Hallvard Breien Furuseth:

wietse@porcupine.org writes:

...

Below is my "least painful" patch for both parties. What do you think?

That's roughly what I wrote was thinking, yes.

We haven't heard if it will go in at all, though:-) If this ITS is a reaction to ITS#7774, then the motivation is not catching an lmdb bug, but letting the user band-aid a user error. Still makes sense to me, lmdb lets the user screw up in many ways.

I agree that we're talking about a stop-gap API in the absence of better error reporting.

And I am not talking about users violating the C language model with invalid pointers and such; that would rightfully deserve a core dump.

--- a/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c +++ b/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c

Based on visual inspection, that code would work for me.

Now the question for me is whether this will be available by the time Postfix 2.11 is released near the end of this month. Code freeze begins in days.

I can't distribute LMDB support when daemons fall out of the sky without logfile message, whether it's your mistake, mine, or some middleperson distro maintainer. Prior art: Postfix does not support GnuTLS for the same reason. That would be a support problem.

Wietse