Hello I'm writing a Common Lisp wrapper for LMDB, starting where the previous efforts left off. I have a number of questions related to safety and the color of the smoke after a disaster.
1. lmdb.h says that "A parent transaction and its cursors may not issue any other operations than mdb_txn_commit and mdb_txn_abort while it has active child transactions." What I observe is that when a cursor associated with the parent transaction is used in the child, there are no errors and the cursor behaves (my test only involved mdb_cursor_put and MDB_SET_KEY) as if it belonged to the child. Is this to be expected in general or my tests are insufficient and something really bad can happen? If this is a disaster waiting to happen, I need to add checks to the cursor code. 2. mdb_txns are calloc()ed and free()d. In the case where a thread performs some operation (e.g. put, get, del) involving an already freed mdb_txn pointer, what kind of nastiness can happen? Can the database be corrupted? 3. Same question about mdb_cursors. 4. Async unwind safety. This is a bit like a thread being destroyed in the middle of an lmdb function call. Context: In some Common Lisp implementations (SBCL), Posix interrupts like SIGINT are used during development. If the developer presses C-c the lisp debugger will start where the signal handler was invoked, which may be in the middle of some mdb_* call. Depending on the actions taken, the stack (both the lisp and the C stack) may be unwound to some earlier frame. Another example is async timeouts (SBCL's WITH-TIMEOUT) can also unwind the stack. I understand that async unwinds are unsafe in general. There is a way to defer handling of interrupts, which I already use to protect allocations (mdb_txn_begin, mdb_txn_commit and similar), but it has a small performance cost and I hesitate to apply it to performance hotspots (e.g. put, get, del and most cursor ops). Are [some of] these functions safe in face of async unwinds? What kind of problem may arise? Cheers, Gábor Melis
