On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 01:19:19AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>
> They could not do otherwise than talking the status quo, i think.
> They have explicitly added posix_close() which overcomes the
> problem (for those operating systems which actually act like
> that). There is a long RATIONALE on this, it starts on page 747 :)
They could have just added posix_close() which provided well-defined
semantics without demanding that existing implementations make
non-backwards compatible changes to close(2). Personally, while they
were adding posix_close(2) they could have also fixed the disaster
which is the semantics around close(2) and how advisory locks get
released that were held by other file descriptors and add a profound
apologies over the insane semantics demanded by POSIX[1].
[1] "POSIX advisory locks are broken by design."
https://www.sqlite.org/src/artifact/c230a7a24?ln=994-1081
- Ted
