On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 17:26 -0500, James Olin Oden wrote: > On 11/29/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 15:58 -0500, Michael Jennings wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 29 November 2006, at 15:48:17 (-0500), > > > Tony Nelson wrote: > > > > > > > It disapoints me that you think it is not RPM's responsibility to > > > > protect its database. > > > > > > It is RPM's responsibility to provide database backups as much as it > > > is the kernel's responsibility to back up your ext2 filesystems. > > > > > > > However, if it were possible to corrupt the ext2 filesystem by > > performing frequent reads and writes we would consider that a bug in > > ext2, not in the program making the writes. > > > Honestly, in simple terms with no emotion , Jeff is saying that your > doing updates to a database that belong in the same "transaction" > across multiple "transactions" thus loosing all your locks. If you > want transactional semantics, you have to do all the updates and reads > within the same transaction. Right? Or am I smoking crack? but we're not doing updates to a database in that way. The only time yum is doing the quick open-read-closes of the rpmdb is when it is reading in the info from the rpmdb or getting prco info from a package. Yum switched from: open rpmdb ro, and use that for all ro interactions to open rpmdb ro, get the index number of the header for a package, save the index number into a dict, close the rpmdb (repeat) There's no updating going on. -sv _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
