Thanks for the quick reply.
I meant mdb_txn_commit (instead of mdb_txn_close), sorry about that.
If there was a restriction on usage in read-only txns the docs would have said so.
This is what I guessed too.
However I now have a follow-up question: The documentation for mdb_txn_abort() says:
"The transaction handle is freed. It and its cursors must not be used again after this call, except with #mdb_cursor_renew()."
Could it be worth it to change this to "...except with #mdb_cursor_renew() or #mdb_cursor_close()"? This would have cleared the ambiguity for me (and I would never have created this thread to begin with).
Regards, Sam
Jan 24, 2022, 17:43 by hyc@symas.com:
Sam Dave wrote:
Hello,
The mdb_cursor_close() documentation says: "Its transaction must still be live if it is a write-transaction."
This leads me to my question: For *read-only* transactions, is it allowed to run mdb_cursor_close() *after* mdb_txn_close() or mdb_txn_abort()?
There is no mdb_txn_close().
If there was a restriction on usage in read-only txns the docs would have said so.
-- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/