Re: use of GNATSDB

[Lars Henriksen]

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:31:10AM -0700, Dirk Bergstrom wrote:
> On 5/17/2002 5:03 AM, this issued forth from the mind of Lars Henriksen:
> > I can't reproduce this behaviour. Whether GNATSDB is set or not, the command
> > "pr-edit --lockdb" seems to lock nothing at all. Neither does "pr-edit
> > --database=<db> --lockdb". On the other hand, "pr-edit --lock <user> <PR>"
> > honors GNATSDB as well as the --database option.
> 
> this is a totally different issue.

Is it? The issue is how or whether GNATSDB is honered by (for example) pr-edit
and it was claimed, without reservations, that it always ended up locking
the default database. As far as I can see, you confirm below that this is
not the case. 

> so in pr-edit, the "network mode" lockdb code opens a socket to gnatsd
> and issues a LKDB command, and gnatsd locks the database.

...

>                                                           in "localhost
> mode", pr-edit makes a call to gnats_lock() (actually, it calls foo,
> which calls bar, which calls gnats_lock), which is the same call that
> gnatsd makes.  this *does* lock the database, but then, at the very end
> of main(), there's a check that says something like:
> 
> if (gnats_locked) {
>     unlock_gnats()
> }
> 
> this check is entirely reasonable, if you're trying to do an edit, or an
> append, but it's just wrong if you're trying to lock the database.

Thanks for the explanations. They agree with my observations.

> so, you happen to have run into one of the many, many subtle and
> outrageous bugs in localhost mode.  this is why i counsel people to
> *always* use network mode, even when talking to a local database.

But of course you are right that this behaviour has nothing to do with GNATSDB.

> how, you ask, do you make sure you're using network mode?  by specifying
> either --host or --port or both.

Or by setting GNATSDB to point to the remote database.

Lars Henriksen