From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id MJYCHmOo5l4FSQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:44:51 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id MH3eGWOo5l5bLwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:44:51 +0000 Received: from arlo.cworth.org (arlo.cworth.org [50.126.95.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1297E9400E1 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F826DE0C67; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:44:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6c2XfDwnXtD; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arlo.cworth.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855AB6DE0A43; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E133F6DE0A43 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:44:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8YzzaaPjMLXE for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A136DE0A42 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jkbMh-0006Vc-Dv; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 18:44:35 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 509446 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:44:33 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Floris Bruynooghe , Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: difficulties with notmuch2 python bindings for alot In-Reply-To: <877dw91l0q.fsf@powell.devork.be> References: <87sgf4xtpl.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <877dw91l0q.fsf@powell.devork.be> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 19:44:33 -0300 Message-ID: <87imftxo6m.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org Sender: "notmuch" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 50.126.95.6 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: jA5zfl9VPZuF Floris Bruynooghe writes: > One thing that they encountered and don't yet understand is that they > reported issues with leaking filedescriptors. They used the bindings in > a way where I expect it to only call notmuch_database_destroy() when > they are done with it. From reading notmuch.h I think that's correct > and there's no need to call notmuch_database_close() first. Yet someone > reported that explicitly calling close helped. Is the assumption I made > of only calling destroy correct? The first thing destroy does is call close. My read of the notmuch_database_close code is that it is idempotent (calling multiple times does not change anything). d