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

Re: Checkpoint less frequently

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2003-02-21 07:41:36 CET

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 00:18, Branko ╚ibej wrote:
> 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?

("If a client crashes?" If we're using ra_svn or ra_dav, the server
should have a chance to clean up. As I understand it, the issue arises
when a server process terminates uncleanly--such as when you interrupt
an svn command using ra_local, since in that case the "client" and
"server" are in the same process.)

On Unix, anyway, it seems like a fcntl-locked guard around the database
would do the trick without a separate process. Get a read lock for
normal operation, or a write lock to recover. fcntl locks are
automatically terminated on process exit, so there is no issue of stale

(It seems like Berkeley DB should take care of this under the covers,

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 07:42:42 2003

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