Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AA66DE0FC5 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:03:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.307 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V4Ts_4atIEZg for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:03:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F916DE091E for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:03:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aWD0e-0001RB-OO; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:03:56 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 30294 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 01:03:13 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Eric J , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Lost updates to Notmuch database In-Reply-To: <337393ce5e2484d64f837a44b2c4f2ea32f91295-NM@bruno.deptj.eu> References: <337393ce5e2484d64f837a44b2c4f2ea32f91295-NM@bruno.deptj.eu> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+26~g9404723 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:03:13 -0400 Message-ID: <871t8avnhq.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 01:03:23 -0000 Eric J writes: > However, if I do it twice, in different processes, at the same time, one > file is added and tagged properly, the other is not (totally unfindable > by notmuch search). Neither process reports any error, and they both log > their actions normally. Actually a third simultaneous process also fails > to leave any result in the database. It should be impossible for more than one process to open a Xapian database for writing at the same time. So if the processes are really running in parallel, you should be getting error codes from the later calls to notmuch_database_open{_verbose}. You claim that's not happening, which is puzzling. Maybe you can try to duplicate your problem with a tiny C program.