On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 15:31 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Upgrading a WC to single-DB:
>>
>> upgrade_to_wcng() calls
>>
>> svn_wc__db_upgrade_begin() to create a new DB, and then
>> svn_wc__db_wclock_obtain() and then
>> svn_wc__write_upgraded_entries()
>>
>> The _wclock_obtain() fails because it checks that the node with relpath
>> "" exists. Normally in libsvn_wc a new DB is created with
>> svn_wc__db_init() which inserts a row for relpath "", but
>> svn_wc__db_upgrade_begin() doesn't.
>>
>> What's the best solution here? Not lock it? Have
>> svn_wc__db_upgrade_begin() create an initial "" row? Have
>> svn_wc__db_wclock_obtain() NOT check for existence of a "" row? The
>> first and last options don't sound right. Creating an initial "" row
>> does sound right, and requires (presumably) a modification of
>> svn_wc__write_upgraded_entries().
>
> The upgrade function is creating new DBs (or a new single-DB). Should
> it perhaps be asking for a lock on the DB as a whole, as distinct from a
> recursive lock on the WC root directory? In normal operation, those two
> mean the same, but maybe here we need to distinguish these as two
> different concepts.
Where is the upgrade DB being created? If it's called something like
'wc.db.foo', I would think you don't require *any* locking, since no
other process is going to be looking for that file. Do the upgrade,
and then move it in to place before nuking all the old data.
-Hyrum
Received on 2010-08-10 17:32:33 CEST