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

Re: When to call txn_checkpoint().

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2003-02-21 06:17:35 CET

Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> >> svn_error_t *svn_fs_berkeley_checkpoint (const char *path,
> >
> >-1, absolutely not. The longterm goal here is to *lose*
> >database-specific public API calls.
> I coudn't agree more. What a horrible idea!

:-) Keep calm, I wasn't advocating it either.

However, if (by some horrible process of winnowing) it comes down to a
choice between this versus putting the checkpointing into
hot-backup.py or some other external process, then I'd certainly
prefer that this API be available, and that our RA layers call it. We
have to keep repository maintenance stuff as internal and automatic as
possible; the less dependent on external processes and doc-reading
admins we are, the better.

Hopefully we won't have to do either, though, because Solution 1 will
solve all our problems. Now if only the U.N. would approve it.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 06:51:16 2003

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