On Monday, Oct 13, 2003, at 02:32 Europe/Amsterdam, Matthew T. O'Connor
wrote:
From: "Christian G. Warden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Since there is only one set of headers per message, why not add a
headers field to physmessage?
If I understand physmessage correctly, nothing in physmessage is
touched
during a move (copy / delete) or a plain copy. If that's the case
then I
think putting the headers in physmessage is fine.
You'r correct. The only time a physmessage entry is touched is on
INSERTion and the following UPDATE where stuff like messagesize is put
in. After that, the records are left unchanged until deleted (which only
happens if there are no more messages using a physmessage record
Does anyone have any insight into why messages are split into
messageblks? The only MySQL limit I could find that might cause
problems is max_allowed_packet, but that can be configured. I did try
increasing READ_BLOCK_SIZE, and got a memory allocation error from
dbmail-smtp, but I assume that can be fixed.
This is one of the design decisions that surprised me when I first
started
using dbmail, I'm not sure why it's laid out this way either. The only
thing I can think of is that it allows large messages to be dealt with
in
small chunks rather than in one big chunk.
This was done because of some limit in MySQL I believe. I'll have to ask
Roel and/or Eelco why exactly this was done.
Ilja
--
IC&S
Koningsweg 4
3582 GE UTRECHT
