Hallvard Breien Furuseth:
> 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
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.