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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=imFLqIOOvC/y83H8bi0vmRDszv6wv0yzm9zk1x6skg0SAh1jPSGBz
	HKuDkMRLRzx+z06CxpAIYBGzN1WHAP+yANph6+G/f5r9/tb0k5fX8o69/0N6Wi6E
	FkzgoI9h3P54RF4WN77kW9m1jX3tCrQNsJToYWFUUJjNrcK7G+Fems=
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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	 bh=v7a4Fm2PAw82CVVn+Ujp/I7ew+g=; b=mdRjJg+XRmWgqlk4S6f3GR0f8ZQ9
	MOoHgZ5Q0NcAAnDui7xwoICqpX4W61M4oPt1qR2NavZ/o1KkhBKPS+Dt1QlWWqFC
	m9VPwL/S0Gt1O6fLMBMCulpu1NmQsvem20IzEUDqwSSObPvG00/EWLWdropxvFQ2
	laV7bzAW9JwqciA=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:03:37 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [TEST] sqlite3-3.7.17-1 (Cygwin 1.7.19 locking feature)
Message-ID: <20130607080337.GH13320@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
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> <51B0DBCB DOT 4010005 AT etr-usa DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51B0DBCB.4010005@etr-usa.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Jun  6 12:58, Warren Young wrote:
> On 6/6/2013 11:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >The lazy unlock request D tells the system to unlock all locks on the
> >entire file.  This works fine with POSIX locks, but it does not work
> >with Windows locks.  These require to unlock a lock exactly as it has
> >been created.
> 
> I wouldn't be upset if you decided that was grounds for removing the
> code that tries to support mandatory locking for POSIX locks.  As
> far as I'm concerned, this is very much an experimental feature, and
> experiments often fail.  The failure already told us what to try
> next (BSD locks) and according to the one report received so far, it
> looks like it might fix it.

Well, after all it's still record locking, so it's kind of weird to
support a flock-like file lock but no record locks.  If an application
uses this carefully with Windows semantics in mind, it might even be
useful.

However, what's missing in the long run is documentation.  I'm just
about to add a few words to the docs.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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