Re: [RFC] Comments on wc-metadata.sql PRISTINE and

Thanks, Greg.

On Wed, 2010-02-17, Greg Stein wrote:
> WORKING_NODE rows exist for *all* affected nodes.

Meaning all (grand)children of any affected directory as well, I take
it. OK, Bert confirmed on IRC. Fixed.

> ACTUAL_NODE rows may exist w/o a corresponding WORKING_NODE row (in
> which case, there better be a BASE_NODE row).

OK, fixed.

I added overall doc strings to each table in r911348, incorporating the
above fixes and making sure I say "table row" rather than "table entry".

> In the comments, we should be better about stating null rather than
> NULL (as the latter indicates a NULL pointer, not the SQL null value).

I suppose we could, but I think of "NULL" as indicating a
computer-language keyword and "null" as English prose, not one for C
code and the other for SQL. In the context of pure SQL documentation,
there is no ambiguity because there are no C pointers, but where C and
SQL co-exist (in C code) I think we'll have to employ more words rather
than letter case differences to distinguish them.

> moved_here is 1 or something else. There is no need to have a tri-state.

I'll leave it alone.

> Your comment with respect to moved_to is incomplete. There are more
> possible states than just 'base-deleted' and 'normal'. You could also
> have (at least) 'not-present' on a child. Consider the sequence: MOVE
> A to B. COPY C to A. DELETE A/D. The A/D child will be not-present.

OK, I'll just delete the attempt to explain that within the "moved_to"
column, because that is not the best place.

Committed those remaining comment tweaks in r911393.

Thanks for the review.

- Julian
Received on 2010-02-18 14:38:30 CET