Re: Checkpoint less frequently

--On Thursday, February 20, 2003 17:45:30 +0100 Branko Èibej <brane@xbc.nu>
wrote:

> Yup. But it would be even better to move the checkpointing into a
> separate process so that it's asynchronous with regard to the real
> business managing versions.

No, it's not. Requiring me to have yet another process running so that the
database can be checkpointed is incredibly lame.

I won't even get to the issue of what happens when the checkpoint code
crashes. We'll need a watcher. Then, another watcher. No.

Please don't go this route. I can't express my animosity towards this
approach loud enough. -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 04:24:03 2003