-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MINOR: [C++][Azure][FS] Document some limitations and atomicity guarantees #40838
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One comment but it looks go to me
/// accounts. A check is made to guarantee the parent directory doesn't | ||
/// disappear after the blob is deleted and while this operation is running, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this referring to flat namespace accounts only? I can't imagine a hierarchical namespace directory disappearing when a file is deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Re-wording suggestion? My intention is being concise, but yeah, none of this applies to HNS accounts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Less concise but I would go for
/// accounts. A check is made to guarantee the parent directory doesn't | |
/// disappear after the blob is deleted and while this operation is running, | |
/// accounts. On flat namespace storage accounts a check is made to guarantee the parent directory doesn't | |
/// disappear after the blob is deleted and while this operation is running, |
I don't feel strongly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit edf7e57. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. |
…ntees (apache#40838) ### Rationale for this change Documenting some details of the behavior of destructive filesystem operations. ### What changes are included in this PR? Only docstring changes. ### Are these changes tested? N/A. Authored-by: Felipe Oliveira Carvalho <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Felipe Oliveira Carvalho <[email protected]>
…ntees (apache#40838) ### Rationale for this change Documenting some details of the behavior of destructive filesystem operations. ### What changes are included in this PR? Only docstring changes. ### Are these changes tested? N/A. Authored-by: Felipe Oliveira Carvalho <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Felipe Oliveira Carvalho <[email protected]>
Rationale for this change
Documenting some details of the behavior of destructive filesystem operations.
What changes are included in this PR?
Only docstring changes.
Are these changes tested?
N/A.