On 8/9/06, James Berry <james@jberry.us> wrote:
Hmm looks to me like rename() would give the same level of atomicity as link?
So instead of doing link/unlink, we could just do rename()?
This is not entirely true. The point of the link/unlink pairing is to ensure that the target file doesn't exist. There exists a race condition that the link/unlink pairing will protect against: link will not overwrite an existing file, rename will. The work around would be to do something hackish along the lines of creating a dotfile for the target of the rename before doing the actual rename... it's ugly, but I think it's probably the safest cross networked filesystems way of ensuring that the target file isn't being written at exactly the same time you're trying to do your rename.
Cheers. Ben