Re: Index/hash order
- From
- Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Date
- Apr 13, 2005, 20:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050413201523.GC27088@elte.hu>
- In-Reply-To
- <425D7C0F.2050109@zytor.com>
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> >that's what i loosely meant under 'manageability problems'. > > > >I mentioned one solution earlier: to make the repository object an > >immutable file (the +i flag on the inode) - it really wants to be > >immutable after all. That would solve a whole range of 'accidental > >corruption' issues. > > > > I think abusing the immutable bit quickly will decend into the same > rathole which makes u-w often useless. u-w will actually be preserved > by more tools -- simply because they know about it -- than +i.
well, the 'owned by another user' solution is valid though, and doesnt have this particular problem. (We've got a secure multiuser OS, so can as well use it to protect the DB against corruption.)
> Either which way, it feels to me that this idea has already been ruled > out, so it's probably pointless to keep debating just exactly what > we're not actually going to do.
(even if it sounds stupid, i keep discussing decisions that are done for reasons i cannot fully agree with (yet), even if i happen to agree with the net decision. It's all technological arguments, so it's not like there's anything fuzzy about any of these issues.)
Ingo