Re: db(3) removal and lastlogx

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 07:56:45PM +0200, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 06:35:27AM +0200, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 08:44:54AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > > > I missed the start of this thread and have a stupid question: why are we
> > > > trying to get rid of db(3) in libc?
> > > 
> > > Because as far as database implementation goes, it is extremely flawed.
> > > The biggest issue is that every program using db(3) in a read-write
> > > environment has to deal with inconsistent data, if the system might have
> > > crashed during a change cycle. I'm not even talking about transactional
> > > integrity, but just plain old "random output".
> > 
> > We've been using db for this for almost 20 years, I fail to see why
> > it's just become a problem just recently.
> >  
> > > Using db(3) as constant database is inefficient as best. It comes with
> > > both a significant overhead in terms of database size and CPU cycles.
> > 
> > And yet disk space is not quite as stretched as it once was, and CPUs
> > are way more powerful than they used to be.  Even tier 3 platforms, or
> > those from 20 years ago, could perform db queries efficiently.  So
> > these aren't real issues.
> > 
> > All in all, I'm still trying to find out what problem you're trying to
> > solve.
> > 
> > It would be a non-issue if a db-wrapper for the cdb was used.  Then we
> > would not be worrying about modifying source code needlessly.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Alistair
> 
> Well, in lieu of any supporting arguments for the migration of db to cdb
> format, let's revert them all.

"I don't agree with your arguments, so you haven't given any." You are
not being helpful.

Joerg