I (Julian Foad) wrote: > Philip Martin wrote: > > > > Is this loop big enough to warrent an iteration pool? > > It could be large in some revisions, so yes. [...] > > Do those comparisons fail or what? > > Oh, no, I commented them out because the function didn't have the > old_copy_id and old_txn_id to compare with. Now it does have the > old_txn_id, and the old copy_id is called txn_copy_id. [...] > Thank you for reviewing, Philip. I'll fix pool usage and re-enable the > asserts.
In r893507 I moved that loop out to a separate function and gave it an iterpool and re-enabled the assertions. I also changed the outer function (svn_fs_base__dag_commit_obliteration_txn)'s pool parameter to "scratch_pool" and made use of it. Please let me know any more improvements you spot. - Julian
