On 11/29/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 15:58 -0500, Michael Jennings wrote: > On Wednesday, 29 November 2006, at 15:48:17 (-0500), > Tony Nelson wrote: > > > It disapoints me that you think it is not RPM's responsibility to > > protect its database. > > It is RPM's responsibility to provide database backups as much as it > is the kernel's responsibility to back up your ext2 filesystems. > However, if it were possible to corrupt the ext2 filesystem by performing frequent reads and writes we would consider that a bug in ext2, not in the program making the writes.
Honestly, in simple terms with no emotion , Jeff is saying that your doing updates to a database that belong in the same "transaction" across multiple "transactions" thus loosing all your locks. If you want transactional semantics, you have to do all the updates and reads within the same transaction. Right? Or am I smoking crack? Cheers...james _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
