As I understand things: yes.
(I do not know if there is an explicit way to tells ldbm that a memory
block is no more needed, in which case we could do something about it ... )
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:11 PM thierry bordaz wrote:
>
>
> On 1/15/21 11:53 AM, Pierre Rogier wrote:
>
> Hi Thierry,
On 1/15/21 11:53 AM, Pierre Rogier wrote:
Hi Thierry,
I was rather thinking about the key and value duplication when
querying the DB:
When using bdb functions that is done implicitly.
bdb either copies the values in the DBT buffer or it alloc/realloc it
When mimicking bdb behavior with LD
Hi Thierry,
I was rather thinking about the key and value duplication when querying the
DB:
When using bdb functions that is done implicitly.
bdb either copies the values in the DBT buffer or it alloc/realloc it
When mimicking bdb behavior with LDBM we will have to do that explicitly in
the LDB
On 1/14/21 12:32 PM, Pierre Rogier wrote:
Hi William,
> It's a scenario we will need to fix via your BE work because of the
MVCC transaction model that
> LMDB will force us to adopt :)
As I see things in the early phases the lmdb read txn will
probably only be managed at the db plugin level
On 1/13/21 1:44 AM, William Brown wrote:
Hey there,
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4525/files
I had a look and I can see a few possible contributing factors, but without a
core and the exact state I can't be sure if this is correct. It's all just
hypothetical from reading the cod
