Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:05:06 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@bob.scl.ameslab.gov>, brandon@roguetrader.com, wilko@yedi.iaf.nl, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Known problems with async ufs? Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.971002124817.7227A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199709242308.QAA23263@usr03.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > It will also mean that there are no hooks to guarantee transactions > are idempotent (multiple atomic transactions considered as an > all-or-nothing unit) for something like a user accessible transaction > tracking system. I think you're looking for another term. Idempotent transactions are like reads where you can repeat the transaction without ill-effects. Non-idempotent transactions modify the state of the system such that they can't be repeated, say rmdir foo. Multiple atomic transactions that are atomic can be restated as an atomic transaction. Regards, Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.971002124817.7227A-100000>