Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users:
> Hi!
>
> Linux distributions slowly phasing out BerkeleyDB, as
> unmaintained/abandoned software. In particular, for
> Debian, the plan is to drop it completely either in
> the next or next-to-next stable release - which means
> about 2 or 4 years from now.
>
> I very much hope we'll have at least one more release
> with BDB, or else transition will be painful (it will
> be painful either way, just less so if we don't have
> to do it in one go). But this is not the point.
>
> What I'm wondering is - which alternative to use instead
> of BDB?
>
> There's lmdb which can be used here and is quite similar
> in functionality.
LMDB support was added in Postfix 2.11 (11 years ago), because
Berkeley DB was switched to an unacceptable AGPL license.
> There's gdbm, which falsely marked as "broken" in postfix
> just because it uses one file instead of two in old dbm,
> but it is also quite old (but supported still).
Lies! Here is part of a dicsussion on Sun, 14 Apr 2002:
Are you aware that GDBM actually hard links the .dir and .pag files?
This is why GDBM fails to acquire a lock on the .pag file, when
Postfix already has an exclusive lock on the .dir file.
Their approach to locking is fundamentally incompatible with Postfix.
> Ideally it'd be best to keep hash:/btree: prefix and have
> the whole thing working with old format, producing the
> new format by postmap/postalias. But this is hardly
> possible, it looks like.
>
> Has this topic been bought up before, any thoughts on this?
To be precise, that was 11 years ago.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
