On 4/30/07, Andrew Bennetts <andrew-pythondev at puzzling.org> wrote: > Does MOVEFILE_REPLACE_EXISTING mean the rename over an existing file is actually > atomic? I cannot find any MSDN docs that say so (and I've seen some that > suggest to me that it probably isn't). Even though MSDN docs do not say it explicitly, I found some discussions claiming that MOVEFILE_REPLACE_EXISTING is atomic. However, after seeing your comment, I did a more thorough search and I too found some references claiming otherwise. As a last resort, I checked cygwin documentation which claims that it's rename() is POSIX.1 compliant. If I am not mistaken, POSIX.1 does require atomicity so I am curious how rename() is implemented there. I checked out the sources and I will try to find more about their implementation. I completely agree that without positive proof of atomicity, there is no point in making this code change. > Also, I assume this cannot replace files that are in use? A simple test shows that it can indeed replace files that are open. Thanks, Raghu
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4