Bug 247955 – Multi-transaction

Bug 247955 - Multi-transaction

Summary:	Multi-transaction

Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX

Aliases:	None

Product:	Fedora
Classification:	Fedora
Component:	yum (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7
Hardware:	All Linux

Priority	low Severity low
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jeremy Katz
QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2007-07-12 04:57 EDT by Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
Modified:	2014-01-21 17:58 EST (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-07-12 09:48:29 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek 2007-07-12 04:57:44 EDT

Description of problem:

I'm thinking about multi-transaction package manager.
It would require rebuilding whole RPM to make another way to write the database,
but it could make life better.

It would be innovation in packaging.

How reproducible:

Install packages, when some other app is using RPMDB.
  
Actual results:

Database access is owned.

Expected results:

Multi-transaction.

Comment 1 James Antill 2007-07-12 09:48:29 EDT

 This is a feature request?
 What do you mean by multi-transaction?

 It sounds like you want to be able to do "yum install foo" and "yum install
bar" at the same time?

Comment 2 Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek 2007-07-12 16:33:45 EDT

Yes, exactly.

Comment 3 Panu Matilainen 2007-07-13 06:35:32 EDT

Actually rpm used to permit multiple simultaneous installations, but these days
there's a global transaction lock to prevent that. Things get *really* hairy wrt
race conditions etc when you start thinking about all the interactions with
triggers and such in a truly concurrent access scenarios.

What's the problem you're trying to actually solve by permitting concurrent
transactions?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.