BIND 10 #2877: slow updates to SQLite3 data source

[BIND 10 Development]

#2877: slow updates to SQLite3 data source
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            Reporter:  jinmei        |                        Owner:
                Type:  defect        |  jinmei
            Priority:  very high     |                       Status:
           Component:  data source   |  reviewing
            Keywords:                |                    Milestone:
           Sensitive:  0             |  Sprint-20130423
         Sub-Project:  DNS           |                   Resolution:
Estimated Difficulty:  3             |                 CVSS Scoring:
         Total Hours:  0             |              Defect Severity:  N/A
                                     |  Feature Depending on Ticket:
                                     |          Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                                     |                    Internal?:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:9 jinmei]:
 > I'd describe some more details.  Suggestion:

 OK, I'll use it (with fixing the typo: s/to the actual/so the actual/).

 > - I think we need some more explanation of why we provide DEL_RNAME in
 >   documentation.  I've committed my proposed text.

 Looks good.

 > - I wonder whether we should now make `DeleteRecordParams` non-NSEC3
 >   records only, just like we separate `AddRecordColumns` and
 >   `AddNSEC3RecordColumns`.  It's a tradeoff between reducing the
 >   amount of code and disadvantages of overloading (conceptual
 >   confusion, need for additional tweak in the accessor side), but at
 >   this point I guess the latter outweighs the former.  If we keep
 >   overloading, we'll at least need what's in RNAME for NSEC3 and
 >   what's accessor should do with it.  I'd also guess we'd rather
 >   specify an empty string in RNAME for the NSEC3 case.

 The separation seems to make sense to me. But I think we might want to do
 it in a separate ticket. Would you agree with merging it this way, to
 solve the slow updates, and create a ticket for the cleanup?

 I updated the documentation for the RNAME column.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2877#comment:11>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development