Re: Checkpoint less frequently

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --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.

Justin, we'll need a watcher anyway -- it's the only means we have to
automatically unwedge a repository if a client crashes. D'you really
thing we can release 1.0 without fixing this totally unacceptable bug?

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

Yes, I expect you can't. :-)

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org