Am 2008-09-24 23:14:24, schrieb Baurzhan Ismagulov:
> This is certainly interesting. I suppose you mean history -w and history
> -a, don't you?
WRONG, it is
history -a # append only NEW commands from the current session
# to the ~/.bash_history which lock the f
Hello *,
Am 2008-09-24 23:14:24, schrieb Baurzhan Ismagulov:
> This is certainly interesting. I suppose you mean history -w and history
> -a, don't you? But if bash doesn't lock the file, I still don't see how
> this can be "mathematically" correct: If history -a reads the file into
> the memory a
Hello Michelle,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 03:58:41PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> BaSH does not lock the file, but it read it into the memory and append
> new things there if you now leave the bash, it is writen back to the
> bash_history file.
>
> If you realy war parallel writes from ba
Am 2008-09-16 20:44:26, schrieb Baurzhan Ismagulov:
> Well, I have worse issues: my .bash_history gets truncated after it is
> about 2 MiB :) . But I'm not sure whether bash locks the file. But
> that doesn't mean this is not doable.
BaSH does not lock the file, but it read it into the memory and
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 05:46:55PM +0200, Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> > *shrug* Bash does that. The issue would be to do the following upon
> > exiting: lock the file, read the history in it, append the new history,
> > close the file, unlock the file.
> Try it. I've always issues with bash and paral
Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote on Tuesday 16 September 2008 at 16:23:29:
> Hello Patrick,
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 08:51:03AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Sorry to tell you that this is a wontfix issue for me, No shell I know
> > allows you to log parallel sessiont to the history files
6 matches
Mail list logo
