Re: svn commit: r25869 - in trunk/subversion: include/private libsvn_fs_fs tests/libsvn_fs

On 9/19/07, Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> > I'm curious at to whether there was any reason that you chose to
> > use the
> > fs-wide write-lock to update the file rather than locking the file
> > directly? If not, is there any reason we shouldn't change it to do
> > so?
>
> No reason. Originally, I was going to have a transaction-
> current.lock file and lock that, but after discussion on the list and
> a test by Peter, IIRC, that showed you can get 70,000 locks and
> unlocks on a single file, we decided to use the fs-wide lock.
>
> Didn't think of locking transaction-current. So we could definitely
> do that.

Yes, if it is feasible to make the transaction-current and commit
locks separate (and I don't see why it wouldn't be...) I would
definitely be +1.

--dave

-- 
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org