Open
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Miod Vallat <miod.vallat@powerdns.com>
48fe5dc to
10fc2f8
Compare
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21026184422Details
💛 - Coveralls |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Short description
This is a thought experiment, on the topic of "high database bandwidth caused by updates of domain freshness check timestamps and last notification serial".
A new configuration setting,
lmdb-split-domains-table, when set, causes an extra table to be used to store these two fields of theDomainInfostruct. When only these two fields change, only the extra table will get updated. When other fields ofDomainInfochange, an up-to-dateDomainInfowill be written to the "regular" domains table.This might be safer than using
lmdb-write-notification-update=no.Checklist
I have: