rlm_sql_log removed?

[Alan DeKok]

Phil Mayers wrote:
> Hmm. Are you sure the "rad_lockfd" locking scheme is compatible with the
> one rlm_sql_log / radsqlrelay use(d)?

  It can be. :)

> Bear in mind that lockf is not guaranteed to be a mapping to fcntl (it
> is on Linux currently, IIRC). flock() is completely unrelated (and also
> doesn't work across NFS, in case this matters).

  OK.

> I know the Unix file locking APIs are vile, but having the locking
> method the server uses on files which external processes might access be
> a compile-time variable might make things difficult for people who have
> to read those files in external processes. They have to implement all
> three, and know which one the server binary is using right now...

  It might be simpler to just make everything use fcntl locks.  The
rad_lockfd() code is a decade old.  Many of the assumptions behind it
may be no longer true.

  I'm OK with changing it to use fcntl locks.

  I'm OK with adding locking to rlm_sql_null.

  I'm OK with making rlm_sql_null do locking *all* the time, even when
there's no sqlrelay program reading it.  The extra locking costs very
little.

  Alan DeKok.