Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> writes: > Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> writes: > >> Flushing after the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, ... log entry provides a crude >> approximation to the desired semantics which is more like "don't delay >> the first result more than a small fraction of a second, and don't >> delay the next few results much more than that either". In other >> words, the user's requirement is more about time delays. I wonder if >> we could implement something closer to what the user really wants. > > apr_time_now() is not free so we don't want to call it on every > revision, but we could call it before every extra flush. How about no > more than one extra flush every 500ms:
Occassionally the system time will jump because somebody sets the system clock. If the system clock were to jump forwards there might be a flush that would have been avoided without the jump. If the system clock were to jump backwards there may be no extra flushes. -- Philip Martin | Subversion Committer WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*
