On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>>
>>
>> So back up a bit, look at the code path on which this bullshit
>> test is being performed, think a bit, and just rip the entire
>> test out.
> Yeah, not disagreeing with you on that one.. :)
>
Good. Then haul out the trash please
2011/7/13 Jeff Johnson :
>
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Passing keys Somewhere Else Instead isn't needed either: rpmdbMireApply()
>>> is perfectly capable of being used intelligently, to perform a bullshit
>>> test that isn't necessary at all, however you w
On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Passing keys Somewhere Else Instead isn't needed either: rpmdbMireApply()
>> is perfectly capable of being used intelligently, to perform a bullshit
>> test that isn't necessary at all, however you wish.
>
> Would this be more acc
2011/7/12 Jeff Johnson :
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
>> 2011/7/12 Jeff Johnson :
>>> This isn't at all the right approach because
>>> its doesn't scale.
>>>
>>> You have changed a single high performing rpmdb
>>> access that applies patterns to keys only, and added
2011/7/12 Jeff Johnson :
> Lemme split this into 2 threads to try to address
> two twisted issues properly. The other thread will be
> Transaction sanity checks
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
You need to figure a better *RE pattern, not whack in
lots of
