Re: Support for MDB in postfix 2.10?
- --On Monday, March 18, 2013 4:26 PM -0400 Wietse Venema
> Quanah Gibson-Mount:These sound like really excellent improvements. I've been using MDB with
>> --On Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:15 PM -0400 Wietse Venema
>> <wietse@...> wrote:
>> > Snaphot 20130317 addresses sub-optimal behavior in the LMDB client
>> > code that affected tlsmgr and "postmap -i", and it makes the code
>> > more resilient.
>> > In particular, the Postfix LMDB client will no longer keep crashing
>> > on a "database full" error. Instead, Postfix can now recover without
>> > immediately requiring human intervention. This is important because
>> > many Postfix databases contain data that is maintained by a Postfix
>> > daemon process, and the size of the data is not known in advance.
>> > With this, LMDB no longer requires constant watching for "database
>> > full" errors. As the system recovers from an error, it logs a warning
>> > that humans can take care of the next day.
>> Excellent news, thank you Wietse! Does this mean it may be included in
>> a future release?
> Yes. And with these failure modes eliminated, it becomes worthwhile
> to explore new opportunities, such as updating a shared table.
> For example, multiple postscreen(8) or tlsmgr(8) or verify(8) daemons
> should be able to update a shared LMDB database, something that
> cannot safely be done with Berkeley DB. Occasionally some daemon
> may restart to automatically recover from an LMDB "table full"
> condition, but the system won't come to a halt. You can postpone
> these restarts by increasing lmdb_map_size in main.cf before the
> table reaches that limit.
OpenLDAP for a while, and we're working hard on removing our reliance on
BDB everywhere, so now that postfix has support for it, it is a major win
in my book. Thank you!
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
A Division of VMware, Inc.
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration