Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94F9429E25 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:15:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.99 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AF1ZiJb2Ihne; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42210429E22; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D652654C005; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:10:01 +1000 (EST) From: Carl Worth To: Austin Clements , Jameson Rollins Subject: Re: notmuch's idea of concurrency / failing an invocation In-Reply-To: References: <87fwsetdin.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <8762taxk9y.fsf@algae.riseup.net> <87vd1a84qj.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:10:01 +1000 Message-ID: <87fwsdobpy.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org, Thomas Schwinge X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 05:15:37 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:20:21 -0500, Austin Clements wrot= e: > I'm looking into breaking notmuch new up into small transactions. It > wouldn't be much a leap from there to simply close and reopen the database > between transactions if another task wants to use it, which would release > the lock and let the queued notmuch task have the database for a bit. That sounds like something very useful to pursue. Please continue! > It seems silly to have a daemon when all of notmuch's state is already on= disk > and queue on a lock is as good as a queue in a daemon, but without the > accompanying architectural shenanigans. It would definitely be nice to avoid the complexity inherent in having a daemon, but how do you imagine "queue on a lock" to work? We don't have anything like that in place now. Another advantage that can happen with queueing (wherever it occurs) is to allow a client to be very responsive without waiting for an operation to complete. Though that can of course be band if the operation isn't reliably committed. =2DCarl =2D-=20 carl.d.worth@intel.com --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFNQk+p6JDdNq8qSWgRAhCAAJ9JPy5w1JOWlCAyc34lIhRlpCEn7gCeO3bg yBbq+40sV+jlv0HkCnjkjEY= =OQuA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--