diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 98b2ba7..83d6714 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -585,35 +585,16 @@ Existing APIs (TBD)
-new/2 - automatically detect and prevent multiple callers of the
- same Erlang virtual machine from simultaneously opening the same
- LevelDB. Excerpt from the Google leveldb mailing list:
-
+delete/1
+ (http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=48)
+new/2 - + (http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=49) +
Sanjay Ghemawat -View profile - More options Sep 30, 1:04 am -On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Joseph Wayne Norton wrote: -> Hans - -> Thanks. Is is correct to assume that it is the caller's responsibility to -> ensure this does not happen? - -leveldb guarantees that it will catch when two distinct processes -try to open the db concurrently. However it doesn't guarantee what happens -if the same process tries to do so and therefore it is the caller's -responsibility -to check for concurrent opens from the same process. -This is ugly, but the unix file locking primitives are very annoying in -this regard. I'll think about whether or not we should clean up the spec -by doing extra checks inside the leveldb implementation.- -
new/2 - investigate if LevelDB's snapshot feature is useful (or @@ -634,6 +615,8 @@ consider adding explicit read_options and write_options for LET's
-new/2 - automatically detect and prevent multiple callers of the
- same Erlang virtual machine from simultaneously opening the same
- LevelDB. Excerpt from the Google leveldb mailing list:
-
+delete/1
+ (http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=48)
+new/2 - + (http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=49) +
Sanjay Ghemawat -View profile - More options Sep 30, 1:04 am -On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Joseph Wayne Norton wrote: -> Hans - -> Thanks. Is is correct to assume that it is the caller's responsibility to -> ensure this does not happen? - -leveldb guarantees that it will catch when two distinct processes -try to open the db concurrently. However it doesn't guarantee what happens -if the same process tries to do so and therefore it is the caller's -responsibility -to check for concurrent opens from the same process. -This is ugly, but the unix file locking primitives are very annoying in -this regard. I'll think about whether or not we should clean up the spec -by doing extra checks inside the leveldb implementation.- -
new/2 - investigate if LevelDB's snapshot feature is useful (or @@ -634,6 +615,8 @@ consider adding explicit read_options and write_options for LET's