>> Many are deserting what at times appears to be a sinking bsddb ship
>> in favor of pickles... For long-running SpamBayes apps like
>> pop3proxy and the Outlook plugin, pickles make sense if shared access
>> to the scoring database is not needed.
Anthony> :-(
Anthony> I haven't been following the spambayes lists too closely. Are
Anthony> there concrete problems with bsddb that are cropping up, or
Anthony> just a general wariness of it?
It's a combination of things. First and foremost, using the pickle storage
is much faster assuming your database is not too huge and you have a
long-running spambayes app. Second, people still use pre-2.3 Windows
versions of Python to run their spambayes apps. By default, these people
get dumbdbm by default. That's a disaster waiting to happen because of
storage size and speed concerns. There were also bugs in dumbdbm (which
have since been fixed).
Anthony> If there _is_ a problem with bsddb, it needs to be
Anthony> addressed. Too many things depend on it.
I think it's more that bsddb is an innocent bystander in a drive-by
shooting, though some folks have been seeing DB_RUNRECOVERY (sp?) errors.
The anydbm-style access to Berkeley databases doesn't provide the necessary
locking for multiple process (or multiple thread?) access.
I agree if there are problems they should be fixed. One step in the right
direction would probably be to create a default DBEnv for use by the
bsddb.*open() compatibility calls. Also, the docs should mention threading
issues for people using the more featureful API so they don't unwittingly
shoot themselves in the foot. (Maybe DBEnv=None should not be allowed in
open calls if threads are enabled?)
Skip
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4