Found nn messages in the processing-messages database

[Mark Sapiro]

Julian Fieldwrote:
>
>On 21/4/09 21:11, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 06:58:30PM +0100, Julian Field wrote:
>>    
>>> Please also try MailScanner 4.76.15 and let me know how you get on. I
>>> have neatened up the code quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Jules.
>>>
>>> On 21/4/09 18:04, Julian Field wrote:
>>>      
>>>> In /usr/lib/MailScanner/MailScanner/Message.pm, around line 1243, you
>>>> will find a line that says
>>>> next if $message->{abandoned};
>>>> Please try commenting out that line by putting a '#' at the start of it.
>>>>
>>>> Then restart MailScanner, and let me know if that solves the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your patience in helping me resolve this issue!
>>>>        
>>
>> I installed 4.76.15. Am I also supposed to comment the above line in
>> 4.76.15 or was that just for 4.76.14? I did not comment the line, and
>> I am still seeing messages left in the database.
>>    
>It was just for .14. I am really running out of ideas here. There is no 
>way the thing would fail unless the DELETE was failing.
>If it doesn't manage to find the complete message, it doesn't add it to 
>the database. I made extra doubly sure of that in .15, so I really can't 
>see how it is getting left in there. If it was doubly added to the 
>database, it would still get deleted, unless the delete itself was 
>failing. I wonder if the DBI parameter substitution is handling the 
>parameter string incorrectly if it's all decimal digits, thinking it's a 
>number and not a string?
>
>Here's a patch for 4.76.15 for you to try that will test this hypothesis.
>
>---PATCH START---
>--- MessageBatch.pm.old    2009-04-21 21:33:37.000000000 +0100
>+++ MessageBatch.pm    2009-04-21 21:35:03.000000000 +0100
>@@ -1259,7 +1259,8 @@
>
>    foreach $id (keys %gotridof) {
>      next unless $id;
>-    $sth->execute($id);
>+    #$sth->execute($id);
>+    $MailScanner::ProcDBH->do("DELETE FROM processing WHERE (id='$id')");
>    }
>    $sth->finish;
>
>---PATCH END---
>
>As you can see, it's a simple one-liner. Please let me know if it makes 
>any difference.


I have installed the patch and it is encouraging so far. While it is
too soon to say for sure that there won't be any residual entries in
the database, I've been running for over 2 hours and processed at
least one large batch of outgoing messages, and don't have any yet.

-- 
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan