[rrd-developers] [PATCH] add 'flush' to language bindings
sh at tokkee.org
Sat Mar 28 18:05:17 CET 2009
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 05:34:12PM +0100, Tobi Oetiker wrote:
> Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:15:02PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> > > yes dropping rrd_flush from the api is not a good idea, otoh it
> > > does not acomplish anything sensible in the code, so I propose the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > have rrdc_flush for the client flushing function
> > > and turn rrd_flush into a no-op for backward compatibility
> > I really hope, I do not sound too picky, but this would change the
> > semantics of rrd_flush() which would be a backward incompatible change
> > to the ABI as well (thus requiring a major soname version bump).
> > Please note though, that removing the call to rrd_flush() in the holt-
> > winter stuff is perfectly valid (as long as it does not break anything,
> > of course ;-)).
> well the point is, that this function used to be fflush back in the
> old days at some point it was changed to fsync, which is something
> totally different (and wrong). Since fflush has no meaning in the
> current way rrdtool writes data, the corrent translation of
> rrd_flush would be a no-op, or what do you suggest ?
Oh sorry, I missed that. Then, of course, turning it into a no-op should
be fine, since this is basically fixing the intended behavior.
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.oetiker.ch/pipermail/rrd-developers/attachments/20090328/d50cd124/attachment.bin
More information about the rrd-developers