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

Re: [PATCH] Issue 898 atomic rename, implement svn_fs_rename

From: <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-01-23 18:23:49 CET

Bill Tutt rassilon@lyra.org writes:

 This gives us at least two interesting choices:
 1)
 * Keep committed-path on node-revision.
 * Add path back to changes table on the branch, but make it optional for
 everything but renames.
 
 This allows us not to bother recording committted path changes on
 bubbled up directories, but it has the side-efffect of increasing the
 cost of tree - dag mapping in open_path in tree.c. (specifically the
 get_id_path routine).
 
 2)
 * Go back to my initial approach and record bubble up directory changes
 in the changes table.
 
 Thoughts?

>From a storage perspective, we're talking 6.1 and a half dozen
here. A change is only slightly more data than a committed-path
(byte-wise, at least). Also, we really can't afford much more a hit
on the open-path cost -- that function is used for every FS function.
I'm torn, because I was starting to like the idea of the nodes knowing
their committed-paths, but I think approach 2 might be the better
one.

Are there other costs involved that you know of, Bill?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 14 02:09:32 2006

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