From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 17 11:47:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AFD37B42C for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:47:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3HIlqH08992; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:47:53 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200104170006.UAA29563@cs.rpi.edu> References: <200104170006.UAA29563@cs.rpi.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:47:47 -0400 To: "David E. Cross" , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: ypserv: a resolution (LOOKING for YP/DB experts!) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 8:06 PM -0400 4/16/01, David E. Cross wrote: [...skipping over some important stuff...] >My second solution was to have the child call yp_init_dbs() >instead of yp_flush_all() (the former would just nuke the >references to the FDs, but actually keep them open). This >didn't work. Can anyone provide any clues as to why? Does >the DB library keep its own cache, and unless they are >"really" closed it will just loop back to the open ones anyway? >The current solution is suboptimal since for many cases it >removes the DBCACHE entirely, but I don't know what other >solution exists. >JKH: I think this _really_ needs to get into 4.3-RELEASE, >this has been a vexing bug for over a year. The current >solution may be sub-optimal, but... I'm inclined to think that we should have a better understanding of what is going on in the DB routines in this parent/child situation. If it was something that worked in 4.2 but would be newly broken in 4.3, then I would be more inclined to see a last-minute sub-optimal fix rushed into 4.3, but as it is I do not have a warm fuzzy feeling that the real problem is understood at this point. If someone familiar with these DB routines could look into Dave's problem and comment, that would make any patch feel somewhat warmer and fuzzier... Perhaps Dave should put up a proposed patch to the gang in freebsd-audit as well as freebsd-hackers? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message