Bert Huijben wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: >> The [...] driver is already passing in suitably scoped pools >> [...] I see that ra_serf's implementation of svn_ra_replay[_range] >> actually is doing so. >> >> Does it make sense to remove this creation and deletion of our own subpools >> here? [...] > > Which editor driver does this right? ;)
By inspection, it appears RA-svn and RA-local have done this right since pre-1.0. > Serf certainly didn't do this 'right' in 1.6-1.8, but I also fixed that on > the other side when I rewrote the driver for the new xml engine for 1.9. OK, thanks for explaining. I have updated the log messages for r1499863 "Convert ra_serfs 'svn_ra_replay' support to the transition based xml parser." r1557736 "Reduce memory footprint of the svnrdump dump handling..." to mention this. > Serf didn't provide short lived scratch pools and we had to fix a few of > those in patch releases because we had problems of too many files open > during update, etc. [...] > > If this problem is now properly fixed for all drivers, and it improves the > code we might want to remove some of those helper pools... OK, thanks. r1651690. > We probably have to reintroduce a similar pool system once we go to editor > v2, as that doesn't guarantee a depth first drive. > (But that will probably require a complete redesign of svnrdump anyway) Yes, pool handling will have to be completely different if Ev2 has a completely different driving order. - Julian
