> One last question, while I have your attention: I think I intend
> to have more than 1 process on the machine access the store
> concurrently; but I assume that's no more dangerous than having
> multiple threads doing so; and Berkeley DB should be able to
> take care of itself and protect the int
Alain Picard wrote:
> One last question, while I have your attention: I think I intend
> to have more than 1 process on the machine access the store
> concurrently; but I assume that's no more dangerous than having
> multiple threads doing so; and Berkeley DB should be able to
> take care of itse
Ian Eslick writes:
> There was a bug with the get-con function that returns nil after the
> restart. I just checked in a fix for that and went ahead and
> implemented your suggestion for a saner error + restart model.
That's great. I'll do a checkout and start playing with that
tomorrow.
