[spambayes-dev] A new and altogether different bsddb breakage

[Barry Warsaw]

On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 17:16, Tim Peters wrote:

> Note too that in addition to getting the best of both worlds, you may also
> get the worst of both worlds.  For example, if BDB really does suffer
> corruption problems, then it would be something of a miracle if ZODB-on-BDB
> were somehow immune.

Except that the BerkeleyDB based storages use the full-blown bsddb
transactional interface, so from that side of things, they should be
thread and multiproc safe.  Assuming anyone really understands how
BerkeleyDB (and the Python wrapper around it) works <wink>, I'd feel
pretty confident storing data into it.

> Also note that the full ZODB back ends (like FileStorage and Berkeley)
> support unlimited undo, so the physical database keeps every revision ever
> made to every object.  So they need 'pack' steps from time to time to
> announce that you promise never to care about revisions before a time you
> specify to pack, so that the physical database can reclaim their space.

Note that there is a "full" BDB storage and a "minimal" storage.  The
latter doesn't retain multiple revisions.  The former can be configured
to "autopack" occasionally to cut down on space it consumes.

-Barry