[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: Branko ╚ibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-02-21 07:50:37 CET

Greg Hudson wrote:

>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.)
Ah, right -- I meant server, of course.

>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
That doesn't work, unfortunately, because you don't know that you have
to db_recover after an aborted session until you're already blocked on a
stale lock.

>(It seems like Berkeley DB should take care of this under the covers,
Yes, it should, but unfortunately it doesn't. The BDB docs recommend
having a server or monitor process that runs recovery when necessary.

Brane ╚ibej   <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
Received on Fri Feb 21 07:51:25 2003

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