titles
This commit is contained in:
parent
f37c2c6a73
commit
c454b82c52
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ How do we get locking in this case?
|
|||
Adding locking to C and D is not a general option, because special remotes
|
||||
are dumb key/value stores; they may have no locking operations.
|
||||
|
||||
## a solution: require locking
|
||||
## a solution: remote locking
|
||||
|
||||
What could be done is, change from checking if the remote has content, to
|
||||
trying to lock it there. If the remote doesn't support locking, it can't
|
||||
|
@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ pile up in a transfer remote?
|
|||
> If moves were used, the object moves from A to B, and so there's only
|
||||
> 1 copy instead of the 2 as before, in the interim until C gets connected.
|
||||
|
||||
## a solution: require (minimal) locking
|
||||
## a solution: minimal remote locking
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of requiring N locked copies of content when dropping,
|
||||
require only 1 locked copy. Check that content is on the other N-1
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue