[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Status of gconf -> dconf



On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 12:54 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Callum Lerwick <seg haxxed com> said:
> > Dude I'm going to blow your mind: The filesystem is a database. Locking,
> > atomic transactions and crash recovery (journaling), access control,
> > efficient storage and retrieval of data. Same set of issues.
> 
> I'm with you for a lot of this, but I have to say that I don't think
> "atomic transactions" are a feature of general purpose filesystems.  If
> I store my configuration data with one-value-per-file, how do I
> atomically update multiple values?  How do I have a transaction that
> rolls back changes if changing value #9 of 10 fails?

I'm not saying that using the filesystem is suitable for all purposes.
If you *need* a transactional database, then by all means use a full
blown SQL server. And stop fooling yourself that you need anything less
than that.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]