On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> But doing GC on an inconsistent state is probably a bad idea.
>
> Then I think the current behavior is correct. You can now disable GC
> using the pack-gc option:
>
>
> pack-g
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> Hm. I don't know if it was intentional to ignore POSKeyErrors in the
>> old pack code. It seems like a bad idea to me.
>
> Yep, I was wondering if that was a conscious design choice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For the logs:
the target file existed and was not writeable for the 'plone'
user (only readable) - not sure if this is intentional an issue with the
umask of the system (0002). As workaround I created a money patch
changing the permissions of the targ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/27/10 12:29 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> What do folks think about this? Should missing records be ignored? Or
>> should the missing record cause the pack (or maybe just GC) to fail?
>
> Mmh,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Could this be related to
https://bugs.launchpad.net/zodb/+bug/224169
?
Andreas
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> a customer site is ru
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Hm. I don't know if it was intentional to ignore POSKeyErrors in the
> old pack code. It seems like a bad idea to me.
Yep, I was wondering if that was a conscious design choice or just
accidental behavior.
> What do folks think about this? S
