Re: When to call txn_checkpoint().

cmpilato@collab.net wrote:

>Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
>
>
>
>>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
>>:-). )
>>
>>
>
>That's fine. Go for it.
>
>
>
>>This was Greg Stein's idea during a phone call. It's possible he
>>didn't know at the time what txn_checkpoint's parameters do, and might
>>well prefer Solution 1 himself (I know I do, now that I've taken a
>>closer look at how txn_checkpoint works).
>>
>>The idea is to move the txn_checkpoint() calls out of the regular FS
>>code paths entirely, and instead make it a public API function of the
>>Berkeley back end:
>>
>> svn_error_t *svn_fs_berkeley_checkpoint (const char *path,
>> apr_pool_t *pool);
>>
>>
>
>-1, absolutely not. The longterm goal here is to *lose*
>database-specific public API calls.
>
>
I coudn't agree more. What a horrible idea!

-- 
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