On 26 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes moaned:
> FYI, your code example is not even close to concurrency-safe. If one
Oh, it's an astonishing kludge written in haste and isn't meant to be
right.
What's more, it doesn't help :(
Further testing indicates that it's the previous state of the db that's
at fa
I think there was a bug on some platform or something where O_CREAT
would in fact fail if the file already existed, or overwrote it, I
forget which. I'll look through the logs and see if I can find the
issue. For now, since all we're talking about is a spurious error
message, I'm not too concern
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 09:35:30AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:04:27AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> > FYI, your code example is not even close to concurrency-safe. If one
> > instance checks (-f $path) and finds no file, then context switches, and
> > instance #2 pe
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:04:27AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> FYI, your code example is not even close to concurrency-safe. If one
> instance checks (-f $path) and finds no file, then context switches, and
> instance #2 performs the same check, then both instances will try to
> create a new fil
FYI, your code example is not even close to concurrency-safe. If one
instance checks (-f $path) and finds no file, then context switches, and
instance #2 performs the same check, then both instances will try to
create a new file, and you'll probably end up with some weird mangled DB
file.
C
On
OK. I've been testing spamassassin from CVS, and I've been getting the
bizarre error message that Craig reports, the `Cannot open: File exists'
one. However, in my case this can't be blamed on `a stupid RedHat
configuration error', because I'm not running RedHat (or any
distribution).
Looking at
