memory access woes in bogofilter or db-4.0.14?
bob at decoy.wox.org
Wed Jan 8 22:34:16 EST 2003
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:44:30PM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> At 09:25 PM 1/8/03, Graham Wilson wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:34:06PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >> IMHO, the db_setvalue can be killed and every code be switched to change
> >> db_setvalue_and_* -- it's the db-storing that figures if the timestamp
> >> needs to be saved.
> >why dont we just call it db_setvalue (instead of db_setvalue_and_date)?
> When I wrote the code I thought it better to have the two functions.
> Others seem to prefer a single function approach. At the moment, it
> matters very little to me which way we go.
i thought we were going down the one-function road, and was suggesting
that it be called db_setvalue, for conciseness.
More information about the Bogofilter-dev