On 6/3/10 , Jun 3, 10:16 AM, William Blunn wrote:

On 03/06/2010 17:35, David Jonas wrote:

...

We're using the SQLite backend for authentication of Postfix SASL. When the db is replaced we HUP dovecot to close and reopen its connection. During this time it appears the socket file is removed and Postfix rejects the authentication attempt. From the logs:

Jun 3 00:23:02 xxx dovecot: dovecot: SIGHUP received - reloading configuration Jun 3 00:23:02 xxx postfix/smtpd[14746]: warning: SASL: Connect to private/auth failed: Connection refused Jun 3 00:23:02 xxx postfix/smtpd[14746]: warning: unknown[dd.dd.dd.dd]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: Jun 3 00:23:02 xxx postfix/smtpd[14746]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[dd.dd.dd.dd]: 554 5.7.1<user@example.com>: Relay access denied; from=<user2@example.com> to=<user@example.com> proto=ESMTP helo=<localhost.localdomain>

Jun 3 00:23:02 xxx postfix/smtpd[14930]: warning: unknown[dd.dd.dd.dd]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: Connection lost to authentication server Jun 3 00:23:02 xxx postfix/smtpd[14930]: lost connection after AUTH from unknown[dd.dd.dd.dd]

Is there an obvious way around this? I know I could somehow merge the changes into the running sqlite db but that undermines the simplicity of the design I have. Maybe a patch to reopen the db if it's replaced? Or perhaps I should just switch to a different db format -- that's probably the quickest/easiest solution. Any other ideas? There are about 20k entries to deal with.

It sounds like your updates arrive in the shape of entire-table updates.

That is no problem. You can easily apply entire-table updates to the database without having to re-create the SQLite database file, and without having to tell Dovecot.

Just create a new table (with a different name) inside the SQLite database file, with the new content, then snap it into place using a pair of table renames inside a transaction; then delete the old table.

That way you don't need to re-create the database file or HUP Dovecot, and Dovecot will only ever see the old data or the new data.

That sounds reasonable, not sure why I didn't think of it! Thanks.