DB backend support for lmdb?

[Matthias Andree]

Am 17.07.2018 um 01:35 schrieb Steffen Nurpmeso:
> Ahoi!  And HA!!
>
> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20180716221310.qDo5g%steffen at sdaoden.eu>:
>  |Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20180715001400.pHS5O%steffen at sdaoden.eu>:
>  ||Matthias Andree wrote in <d38d0bd4-eb6e-6b0e-6252-6bf5223818f5 at an3e.de>:
>  |||Am 21.06.2018 um 16:14 schrieb Steffen Nurpmeso:
>  |||> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20180529185111.0IjYp%steffen at sdaoden.eu>:
>  |||>|Matthias Andree <matthias at an3e.de> wrote:
>  |||>||Am 28.05.2018 um 23:57 schrieb Steffen Nurpmeso:
>  |||>  ...
>  ||Sorry for the long delay, this Thursday finally i have found time,
>  | ...
>  ||causes some tests to fail.  It is too late now, i have to go, and
>  ||revisit that on Monday.
>  ...
>  |So i post what i have, it is what i thought would be final.
>  |I thought only, because we have five failing tests still.
>
> This has not changed.  I will try on a GlibC and on FreeBSD
> tomorrow.

Hi Steffen,

thanks for your contributions. I have tried on a plain Fedora 28 with
glibc, and also see five failed tests,

FAIL: t.encoding
FAIL: t.nonascii.replace
FAIL: t.maint
FAIL: t.regtest
FAIL: t.upgrade.subnet.prefix

Especially since the system tests already PASS, it seems we need to hunt
down a few borderline cases. I am using LMDB 0.9.22 for convenience.

You may want to run "make check BF_TESTVERBOSE=2" to get a few more
details in the test outputs.

Looking at the failures of t.upgrade.subnet.prefix and t.maint, I see
that counts are off by one, or that the wordlist "has already been
upgraded" so I wonder if something happens too soon, or there is one
extra token. We'll need to get to that later.

At any rate, I have committed this code to ^/branches/lmdb-support with
added configure.ac warnings (r7061) that it is not yet complete.

Cheers,
Matthias