On 11/24/2011 05:04 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > cmpil...@apache.org wrote on Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 05:45:25 -0000: >> Author: cmpilato >> Date: Thu Nov 24 05:45:24 2011 >> New Revision: 1205726
[...] >> NOTE: This patch appears to pass all the BDB tests on my laptop, but >> of course those aren't known to cover large datasets. I would >> really, really appreciate some extra eyes on this change! >> > > Reviewed the scratch pool usage in these functions and their callees, > looks good. I'll go ahead and add my +1 to backport. Thanks so much for the extra eyes! >> Wondering aloud... if this approach turns out to be correct, should >> the corresponding stream write function in this same file >> (rep_write_contents) use a similarly initialized scratch pool and >> clear it at the start of each invocation, too? >> > > I suppose this might be a good idea; datasets that are problematic for > read() should also be problematic for write(), correct? I'm not sure that the same problems exist for write(), but after the weekend I may take a look around this part of the codebase. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
