On 04/30/2018 02:31 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
On 28-Apr-18 10:38 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 04/25/2018 01:36 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
The original implementation used flock() locks, but was later
switched to using fcntl() locks for page locking, because
fcntl() locks allow locking parts
On 04/30/2018 01:31 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
On 28-Apr-18 10:38 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 04/25/2018 01:36 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
The original implementation used flock() locks, but was later
switched to using fcntl() locks for page locking, because
fcntl() locks allow locking par
On 28-Apr-18 10:38 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 04/25/2018 01:36 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
The original implementation used flock() locks, but was later
switched to using fcntl() locks for page locking, because
fcntl() locks allow locking parts of a file, which is useful
for single-file segme
On 28-Apr-18 10:38 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 04/25/2018 01:36 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
The original implementation used flock() locks, but was later
switched to using fcntl() locks for page locking, because
fcntl() locks allow locking parts of a file, which is useful
for single-file segme
On 04/25/2018 01:36 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
The original implementation used flock() locks, but was later
switched to using fcntl() locks for page locking, because
fcntl() locks allow locking parts of a file, which is useful
for single-file segments mode, where locking the entire file
isn't as
The original implementation used flock() locks, but was later
switched to using fcntl() locks for page locking, because
fcntl() locks allow locking parts of a file, which is useful
for single-file segments mode, where locking the entire file
isn't as useful because we still need to grow and shrink
6 matches
Mail list logo
