Re: [Sks-devel] sks-peer.spodhuis.org catching back up

[Phil Pennock]

On 2012-05-29 at 22:26 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> The problem with VM timing was reported here: I'm still not
> sure what the mechanism is (from what I think I know about
> Berkeley DB, perhaps wrongly). There's also the chance that
> tstamps as data change program flow: but that is application
> specific, not database related.

Timestamp used as unique key; multiple updates with the same timestamp
result in losing updates.  Then, because SKS has an in-memory log of the
events, this in-memory log (non-uniqueified) disagrees with the disk
storage (unique by key) and SKS complains bitterly.

-Phil