On 18.05.2013 11:52, Bert Huijben wrote: > We do this because *some of* the callers want this behavior... But all others > get the same pain as well. > > And then the rename function can just perform a dumb file copy without any > precautions when we are crossing a disk boundary. > > > This behavior belongs in a function with a specific purpose: atomic renames > of new files. > Not in a simple file creation function that is used in many places.
This I can certainly agree with. The question remains, however: what can we do /now/ in order to avoid the potential corruption? I propose we have two options: use the fix Ivan came up with and optimize it later, or delay 1.8.0 until what you propose can be implemented. Personally I don't have a problem with the latter approach, but we know it could take weeks and would definitely restart the soak. As far as I know, we don't have any performance data that could help us decide. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
