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 614A16DE00BD for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:26:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.211, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 kCwxpYkKRXiE for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A65856DE00B8 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id h186so67298282pfg.3 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=ffRJGbD5vRd7RuYrRx7W82o+QEU4NMc1xAvYrFV93qQ=; b=PSR8Ok7Kkb68Pq8N232rXqEyY04XaZEmaumHaHDiXRbvhPeksrPF2QYtpIiibShYR4 LzzsTmmy5hc7DYpwgQk/ya3bYe1oQSwbt1qjs9u06Sa5S1WwFQZiNe0z45jTfsoPkPno H1gHzY6H9twsCeWKpbkoKUU2EPMierUPRaXtIjSQ9R+eqHVc6PlWxo+2+xpQN3obiEog r+cqD9ah6ZnBdEJDMHBpC5zTabCpU8lKLGoFUT6Ua6IV8SsIuNXTQdvKcm0+a7fQHT+M LK5PiLlFidrufFzzn4p828IUU+J2o2FnCa4C28rigHx+py8pC+IzjTS6TKp60Cp78gXJ gIfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:user-agent:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=ffRJGbD5vRd7RuYrRx7W82o+QEU4NMc1xAvYrFV93qQ=; b=AYpTdK9MFyxOjFf51AHRmLF+Kikrmlnu3TvQjAsMvgLB65VPvELQ99GtSsyvFCrX4l zkO5YGtWD+adoElyC29+AjNRja+HbsdI0T6lssi7JCA7pXAZ3WlbSDB52cwNwcTca1LW FkLECq90ZYXfZLJctMT8xtOQ32DcccaWnExmYxXTiwUBi+Yas2KzyVUYtIiNmfSUtXBQ vJXXK+ucJ1KIAGBt4Ed1GGvT/S7EgPke8QcVrm1oo8R36uFveeUtlGh8QbVfJ6qHqJov r8UI8nqg+7bmjFJWM9ngLMMZaftZMCPFwtDKdQ1FKBxyh6Rv6FjILujAVCE8CcCFm+l+ GGYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutuhwv4MOUdqvrR2wMWBNbjx7lYXJP5GhWemalsXVtD9VhD22M+uuQE1GWeZGWnF3At X-Received: by 10.98.89.23 with SMTP id n23mr106972651pfb.34.1470151605729; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marmstrong-linux.kir.corp.google.com ([2620:0:1008:1101:419b:e62d:4938:a6b6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x66sm5700831pfb.86.2016.08.02.08.26.44 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:26:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Armstrong To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: A systematic way of handling Xapian lock errors? User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 08:26:43 -0700 Message-ID: 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: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:26:54 -0000 Simple notmuch commands like "notmuch tag" can fail to grab the Xapian lock. When this occurs they bail with: A Xapian exception occurred opening database: Unable to get write lock on /example/.notmuch/xapian: already locked I've noticed a few issues with this: 1) The notmuch command line doesn't define semantics for exit codes. I notice that notmuch exits with 1 for "xapian write lock error". I suspect this code is not reserved for write lock errors? That would be needed for any sensible downgrade of the write lock error into a soft failure with a retry loop in things like shell scripts. 2) The notmuch Emacs client just bails whatever it was trying when this occurs. I run background mail fetching, which I expect is typical, and this makes for an unpleasant experience as errors are thrown at me randomly. Since my post-injection filter commands run quickly, I'd rather Emacs simply spin a short while against the lock trying to perform the command. Even a one second spin attempt is likely to succeed most of the time. But I would happily configure an infinite retry loop -- Emacs can show me a spinning ball, and I'd rather not be subject to odd effects due to failures. To address both, has something like this ever been considered: notmuch --lock_timeout COMMAND ARG... Then frontends like Emacs could lean on retry logic written in C. If this seems workable, it is something I can try implementing.