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

Re: Regression in bindings? 1.7/1.8 vs 1.6

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:32:38 +0100

Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> writes:

> The solution seems to be to simply destroy the txn_dir_cache
> instance at the begin of the commit. That comes at some extra
> cost but that is still proportional to the size of the commit.

There would be no cost to mod_dav_svn since the txn_dir_cache is already
NULL when handling MERGE. There would be a cost to svn:// and file://.

> The only sequence that would get us into real trouble is
> thread / process A: modify txn
> thread / process B: modify txn
> thread / process A: modify txn (via same fs_t as before)
> Since A won't re-read the directory contents and may therefore
> return "path not found" errors or miss earlier modifications to a
> given node / sub-tree and use a new copy for the following mods.
> But I guess we don't support that sequence at all.

We don't support it right now because it doesn't work, but do we want it
to work? fs-test 44 is the new test I wrote: it FAILS for FSFS but is a
PASS for BDB and FSX. It is also a PASS for 1.6 FSFS.

Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*
Received on 2014-08-13 12:33:10 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.