Re: FW: [PATCH] Sleep for timestamps in the right places

"Bert Huijben" <bert_at_qqmail.nl> writes:

> And we use some of this time to see if you have a modern filesystem that
> stores more timestamp details than just seconds (by looking at the existing
> filesystem node passed to the function) and if you have such a filesystem we
> don't sleep at all.

We still sleep on filesystems with high resolution but we switch to a
millisecond sleep instead of a second sleep.

I still think that sleeping when use-commit-times=yes is odd. With
use-commit-times=no we know that timestamps set by the operation for are
in the past and the sleep takes account of the limited precision. With
use-commit-times=yes we simply don't know that timestamps are in the
past: they could be years in the past, slightly in the past, slightly in
the future or years in the future. Sleeping for 1s, or 1ms, in the hope
that it will solve problems with one tiny part of that range when it
could also create problems in another tiny part of that range is odd.

-- 
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download