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 - 23:11:27 CEST
Message-ID: <20100525211127.GV6064@merlins.org>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:08:16PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On May 25, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> The consequence of "private" is that its _ENTIRELY_
> up to you, not RPM, to ensure rpmdb access serialization. I've
> been publically accused of "recommending" eliminating rpmdb
> locking as a solution in the past, so
> 	Do you understand the consequences of your decision (yN)?
> But there's also a global fcntl lock "lockfd" on Packages
> that can be resurrected if necessary too. What's screwy
> is that RPM sets the lock, but doesn't honor the lock, so
> a 1-2 line logic change (in rpmdb/db3.c, look for fcntl) i
>  needed if you wish RPM to do global exclusive locking.

All noted and useful info, thank you.

"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 23:13:51 2010
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.