Re: When to call txn_checkpoint().

On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 08:43 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:

> So, would anyone object to my removing the second call? (Yes, I'm
> volunteering to do the change, run stress.pl and the test suite, etc
> :-). )

removing the second call makes sense to me.

> Each RA layer would be responsible for calling the function "at the
> appropriate time", in practice, when an operation completes and/or a
> connection shuts down. For example, from inside the FS code, it can
> be hard to tell when an update begins and ends, because it just looks
> like a series of svn_fs_foo() calls. But the caller -- the RA layer
> -- can say when the operation is over, and run checkpoint based on
> that.

this seems to be letting berkeley db specific operations further into
our filesystem code, which doesn't seem like a good idea if we want to
be able to drop something else in at some point.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 03:24:50 2003