similar to: Writing an FTS plugin

Javier Garcia <javiertury at gmail.com> writes: > I've applied the path to notmuch 0.26.1 without success. > > $ rm -rf ~/.mail/.notmuch > $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/hidden-path/notmuch-0.26.1/lib/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH > ./notmuch new >    Found 20065 total files (that's not much mail). >    Processed 20065 total files in 58s (341 files/sec.). >    Added 19605 new

Hi notmuch developers, I also had this database corruption, I waited for the fix to land in notmuch 0.26.2, build it, moved the xapian directory away, did a notmuch new and restored the tags from a dump. But the problem remains: ~$ xapian-check ~/Mail/.notmuch/xapian docdata: blocksize=8K items=10841 firstunused=75 revision=82 levels=1 root=2 B-tree checked okay docdata table structure checked

I discovered, while trying to set up Tcl bindings for Notmuch (https://notmuchmail.org/), which uses Xapian, that flintlock was not being locked (I had lost updates). I then found that opening a Xapian database for writing directly via the Xapian Tcl bindings also silently fails to lock flintlock. I have taken a copy of flint_lock.cc to play with, and I find that it locks the file when called

I found the solution o this using SEQ_RANGE_ARRAY_ADD(&RESULT->DEFINITE_UIDS, UID); Now, I can see in the logs that several times, the dovecot calls the fts_backend_xapian_update_set_mailbox with box == NULL. WHy so ? THank you On 2019-01-12 21:40, Joan Moreau via dovecot wrote: > I somehow fixed the folder issue. (seems some unix rights after too many tests) > > Getting

Unfortunately I can't share my emails without the approval of other parties. The minimum subsets that trigger the error are in the range of 1000-5000 mails, so asking each and everyone of them is out of my reach. I tried to replicate the problem using just spam folders without success. The following is a solid workaround I've stumbled upon. Afew no longer complains and database corruption

I somehow fixed the folder issue. (seems some unix rights after too many tests) Getting back on the "fts_results" structure: I am trying: I_ARRAY_INIT(&(RESULT->DEFINITE_UIDS),R->SIZE); I_ARRAY_INIT(&(RESULT->MAYBE_UIDS),0); uint32_t uid; for(i=0;i<r->size;i++) { try {

"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill at shutemov.name> writes: > Hello, > > I found that on particular queries notmuch return different results if run > the query few times. Re-initialing the query or db doesn't help. > > I've attached test case along with corpus of messages. > > Unpack the archive and run `make' there. It will initialize the notmuch

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:22 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 02:15:25PM +0100, Eric J wrote: > > I discovered, while trying to set up Tcl bindings for Notmuch > > (https://notmuchmail.org/), which uses Xapian, that flintlock was not > > being locked (I had lost updates). > > It seems to work for me, testing with this: >

Welcome to the first Puppet Dashboard maintenance release of the new year. This release includes a security update to address CVE-2012-0891, a XSS vulnerability discovered by David Dasz <david@dasz.at>. We have classified the risk from this exposure as moderate. All Puppet Dashboard users are encouraged to upgrade when possible. Puppet Enterprise users should visit

We provide POP3 service for several realms, each of which has a substantial number of users logging in with no realm (bare username). We would like to use Dovecot, but I haven't been able to findout how to vary auth_default_realm for each listener. My most recent attempt was to set up one auth {} block for each realm with a different auth_default_realm and socket master path. I then set up

Matt <mattator at gmail.com> writes: > thanks didn't know about xapian-check ! > the output > === > docdata: > blocksize=8K items=70 firstunused=3 revision=421 levels=0 root=2 > B-tree checked okay > docdata table structure checked OK > > termlist: > blocksize=8K items=186136 firstunused=62058 revision=421 levels=2 root=12260 > B-tree checked okay >

Running notmuch from git on Debian testing[1] with the mail and database sitting on a ZFS filesystem, adding mail to a new database: > agrajag-testing ~/s/notmuch % ./notmuch new > Found 605510 total files (that's not much mail). > add_file: A Xapian exception occurred36m 37s remaining). > A Xapian exception occurred adding message: Unexpected end of posting list for

Mueen Nawaz <mueen at nawaz.org> writes: > After a lot of poking around, I figured out the problem, and this may be > of interest to the developers (although not sure if it is a xapian issue > or a notmuch issue). > > Here's why it would freeze: > > I have a post-new hook that runs a Python script. Depending on whether > the new email it is processing matches a

Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de at gmail.com> writes: > I also suffer from bad performance of notmuch new. I used notmuch > some years ago and notmuch new always felt instantanious. Had to stop > using it because internet was too slow to sync my mails :/ Now (with > better internet and a completely new setup using mbsync) indexing one > mail takes at least 10 seconds,

Hi! Suppose you have a huge notmuch/Xapian database, built on a 32-bit system (well, actually on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, but using a years old 32-bit notmuch binary; notmuch 0.9, Xapian 1.2.21 -- don't laugh), and suppose you're finally going to update that years old notmuch installation (release by release, forward-porting a bunch of patches). Naturally, I'd now do a native 64-bit

On Thu Apr 23 00:21:30 2020, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > First question: what version of Xapian are you using? On my laptop it's 1.4.15 (arch linux) and the desktop runs 1.4.14 (Gentoo linux) > And second thing to check, are you committing each message separately? No, I sync with mbsync which dosnloads a bunch of mails, then I run notmuch new which indexes all in

Today we noticed that keywords can't be searched as prefixed terms. Or that's what it looks like anyway. I tested and, or, and not. ╰─% NOTMUCH_DEBUG_QUERY=y notmuch search 'subject:"and"' Query string is: subject:"and" notmuch search: A Xapian exception occurred A Xapian exception occurred parsing query: Syntax: <expression> AND <expression> Query

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 02:26:03PM +0200, David Bremner wrote: > "Peter P." <peterparker at fastmail.com> writes: > > > I ran xapian-check on ~/.notmuch/xapian and include its messages > > below at the end of this mail. Everyone please forgive me for > > pasting 1121 there. :) > > H'mm. It doesn't look familiar to me, but I will check with

Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> writes: > > So the T00-new.sh numbers make sense - there's more work to do, and > we need to read existing positional data more to insert the new stuff, > so the increased reads and writes make sense. > > But guessing at what the other two tests do, I wouldn't expect them to > be affected by this. The non-optimized-away cases of

Antoine Beaupré <anarcat at orangeseeds.org> writes: > On 2018-03-19 13:36:49, David Bremner wrote: >> >> I can't duplicate that part. > > That's very strange. I can reproduce this on my workstation here, but > taking the tarball I sent in the original message, I can't reproduce > anymore. So something changed! I suspect it's the