Re: CVS update: subversion/subversion/include svn_fs.h

> Do we definitely need Berkeley DB's transaction guarantees? I mean,
> those low-level transactions make things more convenient for the
> filesystem implementation, but they're not essential (if things work
> the way I think?).
>
> What I don't know is how *much* more convenient... :-) Jim?

Sorry, just to be a little clearer:

I'm not saying that Subversion itself doesn't need to provide
transaction guarantees. There's no question that commits are atomic.

As I understand it, Berkeley transactions help us to make that
guarantee, but are neither necessary nor sufficient; they're just a
nice thing that makes implementing commit atomicity easier.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:08 2006