Blair Zajac wrote:
> After looking at this, I'm wondering if maybe we should use sqlite to
> store a sequence value in it and use the same key incrementing approach
> that the BDB backend uses to generate transaction names. The current
> value of this sequence would be dumped along with the repository and
> imported, thereby preventing the reuse of a transaction name. I believe
> that if you dump and load a BDB transaction, then currently, sequence is
> Using sqlite would be more work, since I'd have to familiarize myself
> with it, but it may be a cleaner way to go.
> If we did go that way, would we drop the key generation from the BDB
I'll not be excited about any attempts to make our already-a-database
backend more of a hybrid-of-multiple-databases backend. The shared code
benefit simply doesn't outweigh the mental hoop jumping required to
understand why some data is stored in one database and the rest in another.
Besides, all the nice atomicity guarantees of BDB break down when you've
got to interact with a non-BDB data store, too. If it's not obvious, I'm
already bummed that we're using sqlite in the BDB backend, but I think it's
too late to try to remedy that at this point.
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Jun 14 05:45:04 2007