Mark Phippard wrote on Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 09:10:31 -0400: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> wrote: > > > > [kmra...@rockwellcollins.com] > >> I would love to have revprop packing, but not at the cost of > >> potentially disabling the use of traditional backup software. > >> > >> Is there a way to disable fsfs revprop packing, or at least have > >> it function in an atomic way like the regular rev packing? > > > > Hijacking the thread to veer _slightly_ off topic: > > > > Why is revprop packing an explicit 'svnadmin pack' operation? If we > > agree to put revprops in sqlite, why not do that from the start? Just > > open the shard-specific sqlite file, creating it if necessary, and > > write the new set of revprops there. No distinction between packed and > > unpacked revprops, no 'min-unpacked-revprop' file. > > > > Was there a good reason not to do it that way? > > Wouldn't the concerns that Kevin has raised kick in if we did this? > Basically you could not do a safe backup of a repository because if a > commit happens during the backup we will be writing to the SQLite > database. >
They would. For the record, some ways to solve that concern are -- 1. hotcopy 2. take an atomic diks snapshot 3. teach FSFS to pack revision shards without packing revprop shards 4. backup just revprops.db in the SQLite-safe way (grab an SQLite-level lock, cp(1), release lock) > -- > Thanks > > Mark Phippard > http://markphip.blogspot.com/
