tdb_chainlock() in tdb1, tdb2 and tdb_compat ?

Rusty Russell rusty at
Wed May 9 23:08:24 MDT 2012

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:26:37 +1000, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg at> wrote:
> > +1.
> >
> > Or just break the back compatibility, and go straight against TDB2.
> >
> > I'd like Rusty to have a bit to think here, there may be things he can do
> > much better when freed from a few pieces of the API/ABI.
> >
> Agree. Lets break back compatibility.
> We need TDB2, but we need a the best TDB2 we can get.
> Lets not cripple it by imposing semantics or restrictions from the
> TDB1 API we want to break from.
> A new api, a new namespace, a new clean start.

You misunderstand.  That's what we did: completely disregard the tdb1
API.  In some cases it turns out to be a trivial conversion, in others,
it's completely different (hence tdb_compat, to paper over it for the

We *didn't* rename everything though.  That helps in transition, but is
clearly ugly in the years ahead.

Since the transition is taking longer than we'd hope (and turning tdb2
off again as proposed by Christian isn't going to help), perhaps we
should change this and rename everything to tdb2*.  It's not *that* big
a change to SAMBA in practice.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list