> Second, how we're improving things: in svn 1.1.0 (but not in 1.1.0-rc2,
> I believe), when we grab the exclusive lock for recovery, we will do it
> in a non-blocking fashion, and simply fail out if we don't get it.
Saw this in reply to a recent rant and that got me to looking at the code to
see if there is any possibility of recording the lockers. That aside I was
looking at the changes as commited for the non-blocking code. I see you
(assuming svn ann is correct) have added an svn_repo_recover2(). Two
comments on the change is it stands:
1) do we not assume that when an xxx2() is introduced that the xxx() is going
away, that cirtainly is my understanding. If so then the second blocking
call should also be modified to the new interface. Patch below.
2) in introducing a new parameter for the blocking/non-blocking status perhaps
it might be nicer to make that a general flags field for this operation
taking xxx_RECOVER_NONBLOCK or something in the non-blocking case. Thus if
some other new fangled modifier is needed there is a simple compatible place
to add it?
-apw
=== 8< ===
Index: main.c
===================================================================
--- main.c (revision 10724)
+++ main.c (working copy)
@@ -641,7 +641,7 @@
_("Waiting on repository lock; perhaps"
" another process has it open?\n")));
SVN_ERR (svn_cmdline_fflush (stdout));
- SVN_ERR (svn_repos_recover (opt_state->repository_path, pool));
+ SVN_ERR (svn_repos_recover2 (opt_state->repository_path, FALSE, pool));
}
SVN_ERR (svn_cmdline_printf (pool, _("\nRecovery completed.\n")));
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 25 11:08:35 2004