Author r.david.murray
Recipients pconnell, pitrou, r.david.murray, vinay.sajip
Date 2012-11-10.15:47:43
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1352562463.76.0.928887067914.issue16449@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I agree with Antoine.  It seems to me that it is very important to the semantics of rollover that the rename be atomic, even if we ignore the issue of existing other readers.  If it were not atomic, you might end up with lost log messages.  So I don't think there is anything to do here: you just can't use rollover on a filesystem that doesn't support atomic rename.

I'll leave it Vinay to close the issue if he agrees with us.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-11-10 15:47:43r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, vinay.sajip, pitrou, pconnell
2012-11-10 15:47:43r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1352562463.76.0.928887067914.issue16449@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-11-10 15:47:43r.david.murraylinkissue16449 messages
2012-11-10 15:47:43r.david.murraycreate