Apply upstream fixes #2
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The patch was incorrect and introduced numerous race conditions. The original problem was a FreeBSD bug, subsequently fixed: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=269277
Apply upstream fixes
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request
Related issue
Fixes ITS#10095, ITS#8447, ITS#9961
What does this PR do?
Keep up-to-date with upstream LMDB source code.
I recently encountered the bug: ITS#8447 fix
cursor_put(MDB_CURRENT)onDUPSORTDB with different-sized data.The new data item content(value) is interleaved with its previous data, which causes the new value corrupted.
(New value len is shorter than old value len, but when you read, it still uses the old size)
See full thread:
https://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/201606/msg00049.html
https://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/201606/msg00050.html
https://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/201606/msg00053.html