[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: When to use Berkeley transactions.

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-02-21 08:19:59 CET

Greg Hudson wrote:

>On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 02:02, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>
>>Because we want to isolate node records from deltification. When we
>>deltify a file's contents, we create a completely new string (with a new
>>key) and delete the old one, but only modify the representation record
>>without changing its key.
>>
>>
>
>But if we're already locking the representation (using transactions or
>not), why can't we just rewrite the representation--without changing its
>key, of course--in multiple steps? (Unless there's some complication
>with doing that in the presence of duplicate keys.)
>
>(That might mean keeping representations locked for a longer period of
>time during redeltification. But it would mean one less layer of
>indirection every time we access a representation, which has to make
>more of a difference.)
>
>
It would also make moving to locks for representation reads much more
complicated. And given caching, I don't think the extra indirection is
all that important.

Let's just keep things clean, the way they are now.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 08:20:38 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.