The fact is, this is a system that can lose data on a crash and it doesn't include its own recovery mechanism. Without such a mechanism you can't call it a persistent data store because MDBM by itself is not persistent.
Persistence != ACID
By your definition, ext2 is not persistent. Give it a break.
The yahoo people claim to have the same thing for mdbm. As someone who worked on it, I can easily see how you would write such a thing, it's way more trivial than fsck (and I'm a file system guy, I'd much rather write a mdbm_fsck than a file system fsck).
Comments
Persistence != ACID
By your definition, ext2 is not persistent. Give it a break.
ext2 comes with its own recovery system: fsck.
The yahoo people claim to have the same thing for mdbm. As someone who worked on it, I can easily see how you would write such a thing, it's way more trivial than fsck (and I'm a file system guy, I'd much rather write a mdbm_fsck than a file system fsck).
They don't just claim to have the same thing for mdbm, it's right there in the project.
Sounds like you are shooting off without really understanding what you are criticizing.