Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: add insert --must-index option

[Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>]

Hi

>> Do you have a particular use case where indexing is required but tagging
>> is not? For my uses I would prefer failing if either indexing or tagging
>> failed. (My use being postponing messages; If they don't get the
>> postponed tag they could be hard to find)
>
> You're right.
>
> What about a failure to sync tags to maildir flags?

Personally, I wouldn't mind ignoring this failure: it should be
relatively easy to fix after the fact (but others may disagree).

> I now noticed that database modifications aren't flushed until the
> notmuch_database_destroy call (right?), which has no return value and
> failure of which is silently ignored.  That's acceptable in the default
> mode, but with --must-index the failure should be reported (and the
> file deleted).

Yes I think you are right: flushed by notmuch_database_close which is
called by notmuch_database_destroy.

Perhaps the easiest would be to add a notmuch_database_flush with a
return value and then you can call that (and then call
notmuch_database_destroy)? 

Alternatively maybe add notmuch_database_destroy_with_flush or something
which does give a return value. notmuch_database_close is only called 3
times and notmuch_database_destroy lots of times so changing close is
much less intrusive than changing destroy. But I don't know whether we
would break any  bindings or external programs etc.

What do you think?

Best wishes

Mark