Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:43:26 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <199908230843.JAA51695@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:35:24 %2B0930." <XFMail.990823153524.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 23-Aug-99 Greg Lehey wrote:
> > I'm a little surprised that there's any objection to the concept of
> > mandatory locking. In transaction processing, locking is not
> > optional, and if any process at all can access a file or set of files
> > without locking, you can't guarantee the database integrity. Other
> > OSs have used mandatory locking for decades, and System V has it too.
> > So far I haven't seen any arguments, let alone valid ones, against
> > having it in FreeBSD.
>
> I think its a good idea, and hey if people object it can always be an option
> like ->
>
> option NO_MANDATORY_LOCKING
Not quite - developers have to deal with the mess that it would cause
- Matt for example says:
: Ugh. Yuch. No, nothing to do with permission bits, not for something
: this convoluted!
Are you saying that he should just enable an option and forget about
it when he tweaks something horrible in NFS that only a handfull of
others understand ?
:-I
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@FreeBSD.org.uk>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908230843.JAA51695>