Hi, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 11:47:25PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
>> I think it does not in real setups, since thanks to O_RDWR the
>> file should be overwritten only when the write() happens.
>> Can a 41-byte write() be non-atomic in any real conditions?
>
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 11:47:25PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> I think it does not in real setups, since thanks to O_RDWR the
> file should be overwritten only when the write() happens.
> Can a 41-byte write() be non-atomic in any real conditions?
yes
if you journal metadata on
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Rewrite refs in place in receive-pack & friends
> >
> > When updating a ref, it would write a new file with the new ref and
> > then rename it, overwriting the original file. The problem is that
> > this d
Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rewrite refs in place in receive-pack & friends
>
> When updating a ref, it would write a new file with the new ref and
> then rename it, overwriting the original file. The problem is that
> this destroys permissions and ownership of the original file, whi
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> * Does this break atomicity?
>
> I think it does not in real setups, since thanks to O_RDWR the
> file should be overwritten only when the write() happens.
> Can a 41-byte write() be non-atomic in any real conditions?
That's not the
Rewrite refs in place in receive-pack & friends
When updating a ref, it would write a new file with the new ref and
then rename it, overwriting the original file. The problem is that
this destroys permissions and ownership of the original file, which is
troublesome especially in multiuser environm
6 matches
Mail list logo
