Re: Checkpoint less frequently (was Re: Still hang on svn 4951 RedHat 7.3 SMP)

Karl Fogel wrote:

>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>I think *the* major task for 0.19 is:
>>
>> * Create a DB monitor that can detect crashed sessions and
>> automagically unwedge the DB.
>> * Stop creating transactions for read-only requests, and use
>> ordinary locks instead.
>> * Reduce the number of txn_checkpoint calls in our code, or even
>> eliminate them completely.
>>
>>
>
>All of these sound like good ideas (though I have some questions about
>the second one), but aren't they independent?
>
Oh, of course they're independent.

> We can reduce the
>frequency of txn_checkpoint calls without reducing the frequency with
>which we create transactions in the first place, and vice versa.
>
>Oh, I think I see: We can't switch to a locking system without a DB
>monitor to detect a deadlocked database and break the cycles? (Or am
>I just missing the point?)
>
No, we don't need a monitor for that. Failing to unlock an object is no
worse (or better) than crashing or ^C-ing while the client holds an
uncommitted DB transaction.

-- 
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