On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:59:44AM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
> The attached patch (extremely ugly) attempts to resolve this by
> foregoing the rename step until the end.
Thanks for the patch. It looks like it implements the basics of the
idea, but I think that it will be better to use determinist
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Jeff Pitman wrote:
> On Thursday 06 January 2005 07:04, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> > I have no objection to the option, just to the name - don't call
> > things atomic if they aren't. Call it delayed-rename, or whatever.
>
> How about --rename-after?
I'd rather see it called some
On Thursday 06 January 2005 07:04, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> I have no objection to the option, just to the name - don't call
> things atomic if they aren't. Call it delayed-rename, or whatever.
How about --rename-after?
--
-jeff
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman
--On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 21:51:25 +0100 Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As you picked up correctly from the previous thread, it's not atomic, I
called it near-atomic.
But it's a trade-off between not having to hardlink a whole lot of files
(in my case 300.000 files for each transac
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> --On Thursday, January 06, 2005 02:59:44 +0800 Jeff Pitman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I give you (drum roll) ... atomic transactions ... (tada). (Faces
> > with perplex looks go here.)
>
> This is _not_ atomic. Please don't call it what it
--On Thursday, January 06, 2005 02:59:44 +0800 Jeff Pitman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the past there's been a need to provide consistency between symbolic
links or repository metadata during a sync. Currently, rsync renames
files piecemeal. The attached patch (extremely ugly) attempts to
res
In the past there's been a need to provide consistency between symbolic
links or repository metadata during a sync. Currently, rsync renames
files piecemeal. The attached patch (extremely ugly) attempts to
resolve this by foregoing the rename step until the end. It adds a new
option (if we d
