RE: [PATCH in progress] Ref-counting for pristine texts

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net]
> Sent: dinsdag 11 januari 2011 14:44
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org; Philip Martin; Hyrum K Wright
> Subject: Re: [PATCH in progress] Ref-counting for pristine texts
>
> On 01/11/2011 08:20 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > I'm not 100% sure whether close_wcroot() is the best place to delete
> > unreferenced pristines. Review of the concept would be useful here,
> in
> > comparison with other options such as deleting after flushing the
> work
> > queue or at some other place.
>
> Just throwing this idea out there: what if we didn't automatically
> delete
> the pristines, but instead marked them as unused and let 'svn cleanup'
> quickly purge the unused pristines? I'm thinking forward here to the
> day
> when our updates/switches/etc. get back from the server the skelta --
> with
> checksums -- and the client has the option to fetch the file contents
> or
> locate it in the pristines area. More pristines to choose from means a
> better chance of local "hit".

I see a different issue here: The close_wcroot() call is normally handled from pool cleanup for users of the svn_client api. (The svn_wc_context_t is cached in the client context, which is only closed on pool cleanup).

When Subversion is used as a library we can't rely on when (or where) this pool cleanup runs. In Java (javahl) and .Net (SharpSvn) this could be the finalizer thread. We can't return error messages or call callbacks from there.

For these cases I would like to see the final cleanup phase optional.

I certainly see cases where the cleanup here is useful, but I certainly wouldn't like to see a blocking finalizer thread because it has to perform a ton of network IO to cleanup some remote working copy that was used some time ago.

        Bert
Received on 2011-01-11 14:57:00 CET