On Oct 23, 9:48 am, Mike Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To followup on this: > > Terry: Yes, I did in fact miss the 'buffer' parameter to open. > Setting the buffer parameter to 0 did in fact fix the test code that I > gave above, but oddly, did not fix my actual production code; it > continues to get the data as first read, rather than what is currently > on the disk. I'm still investigating why. > > Carl: I tried the above test code, without 'buffer=0' in the open, but > with a flush added before reads in the appropriate places. The flush > made no difference; readline continued to return the old data rather > than what was actually on the disk. So, flush isn't the answer. I > suppose that means that, when the document states it flushes the > buffer, it's referring to the output buffer, not the input buffer.
Something odd is going on for sure. I had a couple of theories but then I tested it on both Windows XP and AIX and could not reproduce the problem even using the default buffer setting. As soon as I do a seek and read it gives me the new data. I wonder if other people can test this out on different operating systems and file systems and detect a pattern. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
