RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: About the consistency of /var/lib/rpm/__db.00?

From: Marc MERLIN <marc_rpm@merlins.org>
Date: Tue 25 May 2010 - 23:01:45 CEST
Message-ID: <20100525210145.GU6064@merlins.org>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:42:45PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> 
> On May 25, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > 
> > adding verify is good though, it gives a quick sanity check and it's not a
> > big deal if it slows down rpm write operations which are rare for us.
> > 
> 
> False hope. There have _NEVER_ been any circumstances in RPM
> where calling (*DB->verify) (or verifying Header blob
> signatures/digests, another foolishness) have _EVER_
> solved any "real world" problem accessing an rpmdb.
 
Haha, I see, thanks for the heads up.

> Its "stale locks", and hatred of Berkeley DB, that are
> the real issues in rpmdb, not whether running (*DB->verify) (or not)
> is being done. ANd "stale locks" needs a different solution,
> and there's no cure for hatred of Berkeley DB.

Understood.

> Note that running (*DB->verify) is directly at odds with
> "not happening" I/O as a goal as well.

Yep. I didn't actually need verify, so I removed it. 
"private" is really the only useful bit.

Thanks,
Marc
-- 
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
                                      .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/  
Received on Tue May 25 23:02:08 2010
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.