[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1411982 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/commit_util.c subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:07:16 +0200

Bert Huijben wrote on Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:36:43 +0100:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: svn-role_at_apache.org [mailto:svn-role_at_apache.org]
> > Sent: woensdag 21 november 2012 05:02
> > To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r1411982 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ STATUS
> > subversion/libsvn_client/commit_util.c subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
> >
> > Author: svn-role
> > Date: Wed Nov 21 04:01:41 2012
> > New Revision: 1411982
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1411982&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Reintegrate the 1.6.x-rep_write_cleanup branch:
> >
> > * r1403964, r1403982, r1410106, r1410203
> > Make fs_fs properly cleanup after a failed transmission of a representation.
> > Justification:
> > Read errors can create problems for users of the WANdisco replicator
> > which does retry requests. Can result in garbage representations in the
> > rev file.
> > Notes:
>
>
>
> > Branch is required since our client code needs a small tweak to deal
> > with pool lifetimes to make the fix work properly with ra_local. We'd
> > made a similar change with wcng in 1.7 already.
>
>
> What would be the effect of *not* patching the client?
>

Not destroying iterpool would cause rep_write_cleanup() (pool cleanup
handler) not to fire [according to breser], hence not call
unlock_proto_rev(), hence not clear the "being_written" flag in the txn
object. That object lives in the fs_fs_shared_data_t (which outlives
svn_fs_t handles) so subsequent attempts to commit that transaction
within the same process before clearing the pool would spuriously fail.

> What impact does this have on other users of the fs/repos apis?
>
>
> In other words: Is this a breaking change that we shouldn't port back to 1.6 clients and try to patch server only?
>
> Bert
>
Received on 2012-11-21 11:07:57 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.