I think there's a wider question here. Why would you disable the userdb cache? What do you gain by doing so? Why is it even an option? The no-userdb-cache code path is clearly not well-tested (Bug #15589, Bug #17133) so I'm very tempted to say "it is not optional". On Bug #15589, Havoc wrote: > I'm pretty sure the bus is outrageously slow with this disabled, > too (at least if you have any policy rules based on group membership)
(In reply to comment #1) > I think there's a wider question here. Why would you disable the userdb > cache? What do you gain by doing so? Why is it even an option? I have no special use case for disable userdb case, just because it's a configurable option from user point of view. It's also fine to me just make it as a mandatory feature. Is that acceptable? > > The no-userdb-cache code path is clearly not well-tested (Bug #15589, Bug > #17133) so I'm very tempted to say "it is not optional". > > On Bug #15589, Havoc wrote: > > I'm pretty sure the bus is outrageously slow with this disabled, > > too (at least if you have any policy rules based on group membership)
Created attachment 85174 [details] [review] [PATCH] Make userdb cache as a built-in feature
Merged, thanks! 1.7.6
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.