On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:46 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> David Glasser wrote: >>>> Is the attached patch what you had in mind? (Plus similar logic for FSFS, >>>> of course.) >>> Ah, yes, that's what I meant; that patch looks great, assuming it >>> works :) >> >> I'll try to polish this up, add the FSFS flavor, and add a regression test >> when I get some time. Thanks for the report and suggested fix. > > Committed in r926151 and r926167. I don't feel particularly compelled to > backport the changes as the higher-level FS stuffs *should* prevent this > scenario from ever occurring anyway. Do you have an opinion one way or the > other, David?
Thanks Mike! I don't have any reason to believe that this is particularly likely to occur in general use (as mentioned, we saw this issue with the older (replaced this week!) Bigtable backend at Google for Bigtable-specific reasons) but given the existence of the *other* checks already, it seemed reasonable to throw this one in too. -- glas...@davidglasser.net | langtonlabs.org | flickr.com/photos/glasser/
