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

Re: DB and Node sanity.

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-05-12 21:16:06 CEST

cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> Regardless of what is chosen, we will not allow a schema in which the
> keys can grow without bound (heh...though in this case, we sure wish
> we could easily let them grow forever :-). If we choose a 64-bit
> integer, you can simply make sure to set your table width to however
> many characters needed to hold the largest collection of those things.

Ah, okay, now I think I know how to make the distinction I've been
trying to make:

   - The DB backend can/should impose a key width limit. In the
     unlikely event that some repos actually bumps up against the
     limit, it's no big deal to resize.

   - But the in-memory form of the keys should not impose any limit.
     That way, no code needs to change just because someone expanded
     their backend's width.

(Hmmm, you know, taken out of context by a non-programmer, that last
sentence could really sound odd.)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 12 21:17:02 2002

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.