C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:12:38 -0400: > On 03/28/2013 08:22 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > See above, and yes if we end up opting for the backend-specific > > implementation then the new fs.conf file will go away. > > If this is to be done at all, it should be backend-specific. No sense in > preemptively penalizing every backends' (current and future) performance > "just in case". After all, one of our existing backends has a long history > of not having these sorts of data-munging bugs ... and is already > sufficiently slow thankyouverymuch. :-)
I also prefer the backend-specific approach since the other one can be implemented with hook scripts just the same. The "penalty" would have been optional and off-by-default, though.
