[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences)
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences) |
Date: |
Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:56:10 -0500 |
>* a "show" that removed a message from the unseen sequence
>* a "mark" that removed anything from any sequence that they use
Okay, I think these will be fine.
If we have one window running "inc" and another window running "show",
let's say at the start of inc we have:
unseen: 2-5
inc starts running, it reads this sequence in. You then do "show 4".
Right before the message is displayed the sequence file is locked, read,
and written so it's now:
unseen: 2-3 5
inc finished incorporating new messages, then open, locks, and re-reads
the sequence file. It then sets the necessary sequences and writes out
the sequence file. Let's say we have two new messages. It should then
write out:
unseen: 2-3 5-7
Make sense?
>* a "refile" that made a heckuva mess
You're running refile the same time as an "inc" or "pick"? I'm trying
to see how that's not a recipe for disaster, no matter what :-) Well,
actually, I think in the refile case that's one where the sequence file
should be locked for the whole operation; if that's done, it should
work out fine. "folder -pack" is actually one I'm unsure about ... but
I am leaning toward having the sequence file locked during that whole
operation as well.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ralph Corderoy, 2013/03/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ralph Corderoy, 2013/03/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Michael Richardson, 2013/03/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), norm, 2013/03/09
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/09
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences),
Ken Hornstein <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/09
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), chad, 2013/03/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Paul Vixie, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Paul Vixie, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/11