On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 03:59:21PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> mw-list-postfix-userscsi.hu:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:18:50PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Either you have solved the problem of assigning globally unique
> > > identifiers to objects. This seems unlikely to me.
> > >
> > > Or, more likely, you allow multiple uses of the same identifier,
> > > in which case identifier collisions are by definition possible.
> >
> > If we could start over: in case of a successful write of tmp/uniq, do
> > not remove it, but have the MUA remove it after it removed new/uniq or
> > cur/uniq:info.
>
> According to this scheme, the accidental loss of a tmp/uniq file
> causes silent loss of mail due to an undetected file name collision.
> To fix, the MUA would have to "fsck" missing links back into place.

What you are saying is that having

tmp/time.VnIn.hostname
cur/time.VnIn.hostname:2,

can somehow be worse than having

cur/time.VnIn.hostname:2,

My feeeling was that leaving tmp/time.VnIn.hostname around is an
_extra_ protection against name collision, but paradoxially, it in
fact somehow makes things worse.

So how can this be worse?

Mate

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]