From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a05012808163ca2eca@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:16:49 -0500
From: Russ Cox <russcox@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] mkstemp()
In-Reply-To: <002d01c50553$8d6de0a0$0200000a@urjc1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <ACCF003CBA3D09458207DB0CB86AD17D0663DF@XMAIL.asuch.cas.cz>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0501280838100.25505@enigma.lanl.gov>
	<002d01c50553$8d6de0a0$0200000a@urjc1>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 384021b2-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> What about two instances of the same program?. What I meant in my other mail
> is that a big random number would probably suffice, as the probability of
> collision is really low
> (as you say we already have user separation).
> Even more if it has an identifier per applications (ex. /tmp/acme.23423)
> which also makes the name readable. In any case, if the create fails, you
> can always generate the
> random number again.

which is exactly what mkstemp does.