Re: [Exim] Blocking vs non-blocking file locking

Philip Hazel <ph10@???> writes:

> I'm airing this for general information. I think what I am likely to do
> is change the default to blocking, but leave the possiblity of
> non-blocking available, just in case. The existing lock_retries and
> lock_interval values are still needed for controlling the lockfile
> locking; I propose to add lock_fcntl_timeout. If this is set to 0, a
> non-blocking lock will be used. Otherwise a blocking lock with that
> timeout. I also propose that the number of retries of the blocking lock
> be limited to that number which keeps the total retrying time less than
> lock_retries * lock_interval + lock_fcntl_timeout.

This sounds like a good solution--should keep everyone happy!

Ray.
--
Ray Miller <ray.miller@???>
Unix Systems Programmer
Oxford University Computing Services