Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 11:53:11 +0100, a écrit : > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 11:15 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 11:03:22 +0100, a écrit : > > > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:57 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > > maybe you could help me find where the design flaw is. > > > > That would take time, which I don't have. > > Maybe you should allocate time then
When? > (or somebody else). Somebody else which could be you. > > Yes, and that's still in my mbox, along a lot of other things. Yes, > > that sucks and I'm not happy with that, but days are 24h long only. > > Isn't this a better spent time than to try to convince the tdb upstream > maintainers to accept the whole locking file patch > (50_partial_file_locking.patch)? I didn't spend much time on that: that patch is really small and simple, and I already know how record locking works at the POSIX level, so it's easy for me. On the other hand, I don't know how record locking works in Neal's patch, and not even in the original source code, particularly in the fork() case, so it would take quite a lot of time to dive into it. Samuel
