Re: revnum considered harmful

</delurk>

[snipped as I'm not commenting on any particular part]

Isn't all this just a special case of a larger issue - namely that with
two transactions running that *may* affect each other, one of them *has*
to wait for the other to complete (or for the system to determine that
they do not overlap)?

This is a problem regardless of wheather or not one is using revision
numbers, as long as one desires true transaction handling. Now, assuming
there are multiple transactions running and it has not yet been
determined wheather they overlap, there are three major possibilities
that I can see:

(1) Prioritize the smaller transactions, letting the larger transactions
require a re-try (or simply fail) in case of a conflict.
(2) Prioritize the larger transactions, letting the smaller transactions
require a re-try (or simply fail) in case of a conflict.
(3) Finish transactions on a first-come first-serverd basis.

IMO (2) is better than (1), with (3) being the obvious choice. You seem
to be advocating (1) in order to not force committers of small
transactions wait.

The problem with that approach is that given a large number of small
transactions, a large transaction might *never* be given the chance to
complete!

The same problem exists with (2) but to a lesser extent.

(3) would ensure all transactions have a chance of completing.

How do you propose to get around this problem while maintaing proper
transactional support?

My apologies if I've totally missed the point / am talking out of my
ass.

-- 
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB
PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>'
Key retrival: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org
E-Mail: peter.schuller_at_infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org