As Harold said in another part of this thread, it may well be moot by 2.0.
At 09:49 AM 2/17/99 EST, Greg Hudson wrote:
>Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Possibly. What do you propose? The current method guarantees a
>> unique file name first time, every time. Since it's needed for every
At 03:00 PM 2/17/99 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>> I often wondered why Dan chose to do queue filenames by inode, but use
>> timestamp-pid-host for creating unique filenames within a maildir. Then I
>> remembered that qmail-queue is a long-running daemon and so will have the
>> same pid for long
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Then I remembered that qmail-queue is a long-running daemon and so
| will have the same pid for long periods of time.
You are confused. qmail-queue runs once per injected message. Its
pid is reported, for example by qmail-smtpd as qp:
ok 915060448 qp 17770
qmail-send
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possibly. What do you propose? The current method guarantees a
> unique file name first time, every time. Since it's needed for every
> new mail, you want it to be efficient, right?
Not a very good argument. If some other technique gets a unique
filename
Yeah well.. what will you do with several messages per second? Even with usec
precision, there is a (very) small chance that you'll generate the same name
twice, which is unacceptable.
Hmm.. timestamp.qmail-queue pid.qmail-queue internal counter perhaps?
Greetz, Peter.
Well
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:16:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Brian Reichert wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:18:33PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
> > > >Is the inode just a handy unique number? Or are there file access
> > > >speed tricks, e.g. opening files dir
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
> At 02:26 AM 2/17/99 -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
> >I seem to recall the inode numbers biting people who were copying
> >filesystems (backups, changing disks). If your assertions are
> >correct, wouln't it make some sense to come up with so
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
> At 02:26 AM 2/17/99 -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
> >I seem to recall the inode numbers biting people who were copying
> >filesystems (backups, changing disks). If your assertions are
> >correct, wouln't it make some sense to come up with some other
> >che
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Brian Reichert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:18:33PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
> > >Is the inode just a handy unique number? Or are there file access
> > >speed tricks, e.g. opening files directly using inode.
> >
> > Handy unique filename. Vastly superior to tmpnam()
At 02:26 AM 2/17/99 -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:18:33PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
>> >Is the inode just a handy unique number? Or are there file access
>> >speed tricks, e.g. opening files directly using inode.
>>
>> Handy unique filename. Vastly superior to tmpnam()
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:18:33PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
> >Is the inode just a handy unique number? Or are there file access
> >speed tricks, e.g. opening files directly using inode.
>
> Handy unique filename. Vastly superior to tmpnam() and all the lame
> variants that go with it.
>
> It
At 18:10 16/02/99 -0800, Ari Rubenstein wrote:
>
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
>
>> qmail needs inode numbers to generate unique message numbers.
>
>This has come up a few times here (we are running qmail on a good number
>of machines.)
>
>Is the inode just a handy unique number
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> qmail needs inode numbers to generate unique message numbers.
This has come up a few times here (we are running qmail on a good number
of machines.)
Is the inode just a handy unique number? Or are there file access
speed tricks, e.g. opening f
13 matches
Mail list logo
