https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #32 from Howard Chu hyc@openldap.org ---
(In reply to Hallvard Furuseth from comment #31)
On 03.08.2021 14:42, openldap-its@openldap.org wrote:
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #26 from Howard Chu hyc@openldap.org ---
I don't think we should be changing anything else about how tpool
handles pauses. We should just be fixing this specific case of the
indexer being a slow task, by implementing checkpointing into the
indexer. I.e., when it detects a pause request it should save its
current progress and pause itself. If it gets resumed it can pick up
where it left off, or if a config change affects it it can abort or
or start over. A checkpointing mechanism is needed anyway, for the
case of a (clean) shutdown while the indexer is running.
For fixing the observed problem:
Improving the indexer sounds great in any case, go ahead:-)
No idea how much work it is. tpool.c was code I knew how
to change, so I did.
Will it then be as reactive as ordinary tasks, also for
large databases? Merely "much faster than now" might be
very different from "fast enough to not be a problem".
I'm working it out now. As for reactiveness, that depends only
on how much data we index in one chunk, not on the overall size
of the DB.
If you still believe there's a potential problem with more than
one pause request a time, your patch might still be useful but
it will need to be adapted for the multiple queues in 2.5. Nothing
is going to be changed for 2.4.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.