On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:23:57PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> 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.
Ah, yes, if we want to skip "hot" files already in the active queue,
we could loop over the transports looking for match, as the message
will already be in one of the hashes.
I am a bit concerned about traversing every transport hash table for
each new message, is this cheap enough?
We could instead avoid the problematic per-transport queue-id->job hashes,
and allow "nqmgr" to tolerate multiple instances of the queue file,
just like "oqmgr".
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
