On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:20:50 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > Do you guys suggest anything? Ideas I've come up with include: > > Ho hum. My original "two phase expunge" code had separate expunge.index > and expunge.cache files, which keeps cache entries for expunged messages > well out of the way. I think this is probably the simplest solution.
Any reason to actually keep them though? It's not as if unexpunge is common enough to be worth optimising, and they're all auto-generated content that we can recreate from the message if needed. Bron ( besides, if I see anything like this copy and pasted to another place in the code I will _cry_ ) path = (mailbox.mpath && (config_metapartition_files & IMAP_ENUM_METAPARTITION_FILES_CACHE)) ? mailbox.mpath : mailbox.path; strlcpy(fnamebuf, path, sizeof(fnamebuf)); strlcat(fnamebuf, FNAME_CACHE, sizeof(fnamebuf)); strlcat(fnamebuf, ".NEW", sizeof(fnamebuf)); newcache_fd = open(fnamebuf, O_RDWR|O_TRUNC|O_CREAT, 0666); if (newcache_fd == -1) { fclose(newindex); mailbox_close(&mailbox); return IMAP_IOERROR; } -- Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED]