Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 21:30:15 +0300: > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 19:29:50 +0300: > > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:21:58 -0500: > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > > > > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 16:33:16 -0500: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > [Ivan Zhakov] > > > >> >> It should be easy to implement editing revprops without using > > > >> >> SQLite: > > > >> >> in case someone modify revprop non-packed revprop file is created, > > > >> >> in > > > >> >> read operation non-packed revprop file should be considered as more > > > >> >> up-to-date. In next svnadmin pack operation these non-packed files > > > >> >> should be merged back to packed one. > > > >> > > > > >> > +1. This would basically mean there's only _one_ code path for > > > >> > writing > > > >> > revprops, yes? 'svnadmin pack' gets a little more complex, but the > > > >> > rest of libsvn_fs_fs gets simpler. > > > >> > > > > >> > Anyone have time to actually do this? Converting the packed format > > > >> > from sqlite to the same format used for packed revs would be a bonus. > > > >> > > > >> I like this idea, but it would seem to introduce an additional stat() > > > >> call* for every attempt to fetch a revprop, because you'd first have > > > >> to check the "old" location, and then the packed one. > > > > > > > > I don't like the idea of writing revprops outside the DB and moving them > > > > back in. (I think I already said why elsethread?) > > > > > > (I will assume "the DB" means "the SQLite-backed revprop database".) > > > > > > I agree with you, but I don't think that's what the proposal was > > > about. My understanding would be that we'd pack revprops just like we > > > pack revision (one single concat'd file per shard), and then store any > > > edits in separate files. We'd then "repack" the edits into the pack > > > files when an admin subsequently runs 'svnadmin pack'. > > > > Yes, that's exactly what I don't like :-) > > I take that back --- what Hyrum described here is not the same as my > previous understanding. > > How about storing just a single serialized hash per shard, but > nameprefix the properties?
By the way --- I realize that I haven't yet expressed on an opinion on the suggestion as described by Hyrum --- I am simply still trying to see if I can find a race condition in there. (My previous example will fail if the 'separate files' are stored at a path other than revprops/0/42.)
