<quote who="Howard Chu">
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:22 PM -0700 Howard Chuhyc@symas.com wrote:
Thinking about it some more, we can still salvage back-bdb, but it will require a change in the dn2id index format. The only thing that bothers me about this is that once you start down the path of making "sensible" changes to back-bdb's dn2id format, you eventually arrive at back-hdb anyway, so again, is it really worth the effort...
Maybe we just deprecate it, tell everyone to move off of BDB 4.2.52 at the same time, and rework back-hdb to work with BDB 4.7's new locking stuff. Honestly it seems like a bit of work to go to, to save a backend that's already been obsoleted.
Sounds about right to me. Of course, we knew that back-bdb's dn2id index was a problem 'way back in the beginning...
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200112/msg00118.html
and we knew that back-hdb didn't have these problems. And we've talked about dropping back-bdb in favor of back-hdb several times through the years. It seems now is the time.
What's the overall impact to everything else code wise? "make test" will take half the time now though.