Re: Checkpoint less frequently

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 06:12:18PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, February 20, 2003 17:45:30 +0100 Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu>
> wrote:
>
> > Yup. But it would be even better to move the checkpointing into a
> > separate process so that it's asynchronous with regard to the real
> > business managing versions.
>
> No, it's not. Requiring me to have yet another process running so that the
> database can be checkpointed is incredibly lame.
>
> I won't even get to the issue of what happens when the checkpoint code
> crashes. We'll need a watcher. Then, another watcher. No.
>
> Please don't go this route. I can't express my animosity towards this
> approach loud enough. -- justin

Yah. It sucks. Quite hard. Golf balls and hoses hard.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org