Re: back-bdb flaw

Gavin Henry wrote:

<quote who="Howard Chu"> > 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.

Considering that back-hdb and back-bdb share 90% of their code, I don't see any immediate impact from this decision. Even going thru and deleting/moving the files in CVS is more trouble than it's worth. I guess we can disable it by default in the configure script, and drop it from the default tests.