in reply to Re: Atomic Config Updater with History?
in thread Atomic Config Updater with History?
All of what BrowserUk says is true, although most journaled filesystems will limit your liability when using regular files. Couple this with (at least on Linux) sync-ed writes (which you *don't* want to do a lot of, as they are dreadfully slow), and you might get by. A transactional DB is better, but you do have to remember that the two-phase commit is designed to ensure that multiple operations on the DB itself are either all done, or not done (ie rolled back). When part of what you are trying to 'commit' has nothing to do with the database (ie, transition a server to a new state), then you are still not atomic. In BrowserUk's example, if you
- INSERT the command msg
- perform the command
- commit the INSERT
fnord
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^3: Atomic Config Updater with History?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 26, 2011 at 17:54 UTC |
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom