Large Mailbox Append Fix

[Ken Murchison]

Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:53:28 -0400, "Ken Murchison" <murch at andrew.cmu.edu> said:
>> Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:44:55 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <dpc22 at cam.ac.uk> said:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We still need to sync the final last_uid, which may be greater than
>>>>> the UID of the maximum message.
>>>> Oops, yes. Replacing last_uid for the last batch should be good enough.
>>>>
>>>>> (though I think there's a separate check later that does that if they
>>>>> still don't match... I really should test-case this!)
>>>> I don't think so. There is a separate test for UIDLAST if 
>>>> do_mailbox_work() finds that it has no messages to UPLOAD.
>>> Yeah, you're right.  I've got a simpler rewrite of the patch here that
>>> does update_uidlast(mailbox) at the end if there's nothing in the
>>> index_list.
>>
>> Attached is my rewrite against CVS.  I removed duplicate code that 
>> resulted from having one for() loop with a special case if() inside (It 
>> not uses a for() loop nested inside a do() loop).  The patch doesn't 
>> look simpler because my version of diff appears to be braindead.
> 
> This still doesn't guarantee to update UIDLAST in the pathological case
> where there are exactly max_count messages to be uploaded, not including
> the final message in the list due to a UUID/GUID matchup - at least not
> according to my reading of it.

Hmm.  I could be wrong, but UIDLAST always gets set in the last batch, 
even if the number of messages is a multiple of max_count.  It may be 
hard to tell from the diff, since its kind of chopped up.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University