------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=474
------- Comment #7 from ph10@??? 2007-02-22 09:55 -------
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, kjetilho@??? wrote:
> ------- Comment #5 from kjetilho@??? 2007-02-21 18:31 -------
> I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is worthwhile. you can set the variable to
> "" to save memory, so the only thing gained by unsetting variables is that they
> don't have to be listed in the queue file. so we save perhaps 32 bytes of disk
> space for each such variable.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, bugzilla.exim.simon@??? wrote:
> ------- Comment #6 from bugzilla.exim.simon@??? 2007-02-21 20:54 -------
> Surely this is the point of unsetting variables?
(1) Setting a previously set variable to "" is unlikely to save memory,
because the old value's memory probably won't be re-used.
(2) Unless you use a zillion variables, saving 32 bytes of queue file
for each variable is hardly going to affect anything.
(3) The original patch that marks the variable "unset", without fiddling
with the tree, would in any case achieve that.
(4) I cannot see the point of implementing a complicated and tricky
algorithm to actually remove nodes from the tree. I can't see any
benefit at all, and in any case if there were any benefit it would be
for a small number of users.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
