Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Just to be a pain, I would note that the proposed semantics seems to be
> incomplete. A "walk" is not [necessarily] an atomic operation. One has
> to define (at least) what happens if objects get
> referenced/added/deleted/etc. while the walk is in progress. I am not
> even talking about things like re-configure when an entire "drive" may
> disappear from the store while somebody is slowly searching for an
> object that matches some "interesting" criteria...
Right. It should be documented that walks may only be safely performed
atomicly without any other store operations taking place, or the result
will be undefined. I am only looking at replacing the two walks
currently done in Squid.
/Henrik
Received on Tue Apr 25 2000 - 00:17:10 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:12:24 MST