RE: Last version of the new summary storage engine
- From: Dave Cridland <dave cridland net>
- To: "Dirk-Jan Binnema nokia com" <Dirk-Jan Binnema nokia com>
- Cc: tinymail-devel-list gnome org, Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>
- Subject: RE: Last version of the new summary storage engine
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:00:01 +0000
On Mon Dec 10 22:23:21 2007, Dirk-Jan Binnema nokia com wrote:
> > 2) size should also be a uint32_t, since otherwise on 64-bit >
> platforms you'll have a 64-bit size, there, which isn't needed.
> > Right. Unless you want to support terrabyte-sized E-mails of
course.
Also - it would be good to keep the summary format the same on
both 32/64 platforms (and even different-endian), so I can maintain
one ~/.tinymail no matter what I use (this is a real issue on
AMD64, where you can run 32-bit and 64 programs at the same time).
Well, it's more that IMAP imposes a 4G limit - it's an unsigned
32-bit number - so there's no point in trying to support more. No
email system will accept anything like 4G anyway.
BTW, wild other idea, what about using, say, SQLite for storing the
summary information? I think that could save us from a lot of
error-prone lowlevel hacking (think about row-level locking)
and make debugging easier. I am not sure about the memory/speed
tradeoffs.
For the stringy data, it might work out better. For the fixed-width
data (UID, INTERNALDATE, MODSEQ, FLAGS-bitmap, etc), it'd be faster
to use mmap(), although you lose the transactional fun.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave cridland net - xmpp:dwd jabber org
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]