search for: lbri

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "lbri".

Did you mean: bri
2016 Feb 21
5
Database left unlocked by Tcl bindings
I discovered, while trying to set up Tcl bindings for Notmuch (https://notmuchmail.org/), which uses Xapian, that flintlock was not being locked (I had lost updates). I then found that opening a Xapian database for writing directly via the Xapian Tcl bindings also silently fails to lock flintlock. I have taken a copy of flint_lock.cc to play with, and I find that it locks the file when called
2016 Feb 24
4
Database left unlocked by Tcl bindings
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 03:17:35 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:26:27PM +0100, Eric wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:22 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 02:15:25PM +0100, Eric J wrote: >>>> I discovered, while trying to set up Tcl bindings for Notmuch >>>>
2016 Feb 22
3
Database left unlocked by Tcl bindings
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:22 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 02:15:25PM +0100, Eric J wrote: > > I discovered, while trying to set up Tcl bindings for Notmuch > > (https://notmuchmail.org/), which uses Xapian, that flintlock was not > > being locked (I had lost updates). > > It seems to work for me, testing with this: >
2016 Feb 25
2
Database left unlocked by Tcl bindings
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 02:24:51 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 04:30:55PM +0100, Eric J wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 03:17:35 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: >>>On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:26:27PM +0100, Eric wrote: >>>> % package require xapian 1.0.0 >>>> 1.2.18 >>> >>>
2016 Feb 27
2
Database left unlocked by Tcl bindings
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:37:52 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:21:17PM +0100, Eric J wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 02:24:51 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > > > It's clearly not as simple as execl() always releasing the lock, but I > > > don't think we've ruled out the OS entirely yet - the
2016 Feb 22
0
execl
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Eric Lindblad <geirfuglaps at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Actually I have now found that the fcntl works, it is the execl which loses the lock! > > Could fork be at issue? That would sound sensible, but I have stepped through the code (my copy, obviously) with gdb, checking on the file with lsof in another session. The sequence is
2016 Mar 01
0
Database left unlocked by Tcl bindings
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 19:39:11 +0100 (CET), Eric J <eric at deptj.eu> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:37:52 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: 8>< -------- >> I'm testing with Tcl 8.6 (Debian package 8.6.4+dfsg-3), and it works for >> me. >> >> So it does seem it must be due to something your Tcl interpreter is >> doing, but I'm