[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bash-bug
Subject:    Re: PROMPT_COMMAND='history -a; history -n' causes shell hang in OX 10.10 Yosemite / bash 3.2.53
From:       Piotr Grzybowski <narsil.pl () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-11-07 16:35:28
Message-ID: CAP=cN8nZ9pTx2gYa84kJ5mSR7axU9GqugDG9VwEitkinQLDUgw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

 Good point Graham, definitely good place to start.
 If you are interested we can discuss further, privately. Mainly
because I want to say some nasty things about implementing sharing and
locking resources withouth ipc. :))

cheers,
pg



On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Graham Jones
<your-name-here@grahamjones.org> wrote:
> Guys thanks so much for taking this discussion further than just the reported bug \
> that prevented the existing workaround. I've often considered putting this work in \
> myself but wasn't sure what the reason was for this not being in bash already and \
> if there was an architectural difficulty with implementing it. It sounds more like \
> that it just wasn't considered as an option rather than there is a problem \
> implementing it. 
> Given that ksh only ever worked this way (but its shared history performed \
> flawlessly)l, I would think that the mechanism they used and particularly how they \
> handled the locking is a good place to start with. 
> GJ
> 
> > On 7 Nov 2014, at 11:29 pm, Piotr Grzybowski <narsil.pl@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Named pipes (aka fifos) are notorious for being buggy on Cygwin and
> > > non-available on mingw.
> > 
> > thanks Eric. good news.
> > so this means, that shared history can only be implemented using
> > regular files. is that right?
> > 
> > cheers,
> > pg
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]