From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Dovecot locking
References: <87zkpvv01u.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org>
	<87r5b5e3qm.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
	<87wrku5yrf.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:18:01 -0600
In-Reply-To: <87wrku5yrf.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message
	of "Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:47:32 -0600")
Message-ID: <87ipwe5xcm.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> It looks like dovecot's interval is 10 seconds, so for this to work
> right, notmuch will need to call lockfile_touch() more often than that.
>
>   /* How often to touch the uidlist lock file when it's locked.
>      This is done both when using KEEP_LOCKED flag and when syncing a large
>      maildir. */
>   #define MAILDIR_LOCK_TOUCH_SECS 10
>
> As yet, I don't know if that's likely to be easy to add.

OK, Austin just pointed out that we probably don't need this, at least
with the current code.  I was just being overly conservative.

Since we only hold the lock for the duration of a rename, I don't think
there's any need for lockfile_touch().

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4