Re: [PATCH] Two issues with the gnus-registry

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

Dan Christensen <jdc@uwo.ca> writes:

> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>> 1. The big one changes the database structure, combining :max-hard and
>> :max-soft into :max-size
>
> Does this mean that precious entries will *never* get pruned?
> Will that be a problem?
>
> Also, if precious entries count towards the total, then once
> you have as many precious entries as the total size, no other
> entries will ever be kept...
>
> What are precious entries currently used for?

Yup, the whole point of precious entries is that you don't want them to
be pruned. This was how the registry was supposed to operate to begin
with, it just wasn't working correctly.

And yes, the registry refuses to add new entries over the total size,
precious or not. When it hits the limit, it tries to prune. If all the
entries in the registry are precious, it will lock up. I'd be mighty
surprised if anyone ever gets to this situation.

*No* entries are made precious in the default registry setup, so my
changes here won't affect anyone who hasn't gone and used preciousness
for their own purposes. I think that's why no one has run into this
problem before.

Users and package authors who make heavy use of this feature should
probably have a secondary "pruning" routine on hand that removes the
precious keys from entries that no longer need them. The registry could
probably do a little more to signal that it was full of precious
entries, so those routines could be run automatically.

I'd be happy to discuss how all this should work, and make any changes
that Ted is okay with. I think the registry is a great idea, and one
that's currently underutilized.

Eric