Bojan Smojver wrote:
>>I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
>> more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
>> comprehensive trunk fixes into 2.2.x.
>
> Just a ping on the status of this backport...
The proposals are in the 2.2.x STATUS
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 10:02 -0700, Chris Darroch wrote:
>I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
> more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
> comprehensive trunk fixes into 2.2.x.
Just a ping on the status of this backport...
--
Bojan
Nick Kew wrote:
> I was wondering about that, but reluctant to propose a backport
> from trunk without doing some more research. If you want to make it
> a backport proposal, I'll try and get my brain around it (and one or
> two related issues) in the morning.
The main thing I'd point to is t
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> If mod_dbd.c from trunk works in 2.2.x, we should just have that
> instead. No need to carry two different things if the new stuff is
> backward compatible.
If you need to, you can just drop the mod_dbd.c from trunk into
2.2.x; we do that and it works fine. The main pro
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:02:12 -0700
Chris Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I've just reviewed both patches, and added them as an
> > attachment to PR#42327 and a proposal in STATUS.
>
>I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
> more co
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 10:02 -0700, Chris Darroch wrote:
>I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
> more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
> comprehensive trunk fixes into 2.2.x.
If mod_dbd.c from trunk works in 2.2.x, we should just have
Nick Kew wrote:
> Thanks. I've just reviewed both patches, and added them as an
> attachment to PR#42327 and a proposal in STATUS.
I apologize for joining this thread a little late. I know it's
more complicated, but I'm inclined to suggest trying to bring the more
comprehensive trunk fixes i
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:46:12 +1000
Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that the current 2.2.x code calls dbd_setup() only for
> global server, therefore causing all other VHs to have things
> uninitialised. If DBDPersist is On and dbd_setup_lock() is attempted,
> mutex doesn'
The problem is that the current 2.2.x code calls dbd_setup() only for
global server, therefore causing all other VHs to have things
uninitialised. If DBDPersist is On and dbd_setup_lock() is attempted,
mutex doesn't exist (it was never set up), so this fails. This patch
should fix all that (or so I
