X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=bDUDiPPyWCZxAHq7 gvWRlQg1yvWI4fTUiByj6daMqWILiN6bXHrZzUfFfKl9xJJ1aNaebcKjJaAwO514 tiTGfq1GGVemPBRWXIMMDb3Y3SK/JFq2ts8QeUKprF8/NH/JyI/YuSFu+p9esyyx 3T5PJI0W/W4jbkGeCl1yui1OLjE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type; s=default; bh=uCAvLMzQSGCAxp3Uoyz+aU 5j4GI=; b=doS7IGcRNVse84uZK3ygEjnKH3RcJpzqfOf+zE0go7CvvVejEzWmW2 GorkX6kb4VZck8dVfYmB/O32boADF+er+iQn/uO9Ovi5LfKfZ+J5HoodFP3iTxwj 9K9V7rEhAgsQ9s5jS/2o6+v2FHDZfcAXhQV8hyAtMLpfXwExN3ASE= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TW_FC autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: [TEST] sqlite3-3.7.17-1 (Cygwin 1.7.19 locking feature) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:17:12 +0200 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <87ppvzdryv.fsf@Rainer.invalid> References: <51ACF886 DOT 10301 AT etr-usa DOT com> <51AD3BB4 DOT 2010601 AT acm DOT org> <20130604084128 DOT GB19572 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20130604093749 DOT GA32667 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <51AF9A32 DOT 2030706 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20130606172218 DOT GD13320 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Corinna Vinschen writes: > In theory this scenario could be worked around in Cygwin by bookkeeping > the present locks, plus a piece of code which unlocks all existing locks > in the given range when a lock or unlock request is coming in. However, > the really dismal fact is, that an unlock before a lock would never be > atomic. If the F_SETLK request unlocks an existing lock and then > another process gets a lock in the requested range, the first process > ends up with a failed fcntl call and no lock at all. Thanks for the explanation, I'm beginning to see what the backoff / retry code in SQLite on WIndows is supposed to be doing (hopefully). Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple