Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > > reasonably small.
> >
> > I see one hash table that is indexed by the queue ID, so this
> > would involve one hash-table lookup per transport:
>
> Not sure what "this" is referring to above.
To avoid opening the same queue file more than once. That requires
a hash lookup by queue file name. I could use the same hash that
I was contemplating for an experiment where I elimimate the need
for the on-disk active queue. That would shave off one rename
operation, or two directory updates and three inode updates.
Wietse
