On 23.06.2015 16:34, kot...@apache.org wrote: > Author: kotkov > Date: Tue Jun 23 14:34:05 2015 > New Revision: 1687079 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1687079 > Log: > Only lock the hotcopy destination (by taking db/write-lock, db/pack-lock > and db/txn-current-lock) when we are running in the incremental mode. We > don't have to do this in a non-incremental mode, because the destination > is not openable until we are done with the hotcopy. If it cannot be opened, > concurrency is not an issue. > > * subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c > (svn_fs_fs__hotcopy): Lock the hotcopy destination only if we're running > in incremental mode (and a fallback to the non-incremental mode didn't > happen). > > Modified: > subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c > > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c?rev=1687079&r1=1687078&r2=1687079&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c (original) > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c Tue Jun 23 14:34:05 > 2015 > @@ -1086,7 +1086,15 @@ svn_fs_fs__hotcopy(svn_fs_t *src_fs, > hbb.notify_baton = notify_baton; > hbb.cancel_func = cancel_func; > hbb.cancel_baton = cancel_baton; > - SVN_ERR(svn_fs_fs__with_all_locks(dst_fs, hotcopy_body, &hbb, pool)); > + > + /* Lock the destination in the incremental mode. For a non-incremental > + * hotcopy, don't take any locks. In that case the destination cannot be > + * opened until the hotcopy finishes, and we don't have to worry about > + * concurrency. */ > + if (incremental) > + SVN_ERR(svn_fs_fs__with_all_locks(dst_fs, hotcopy_body, &hbb, pool)); > + else > + SVN_ERR(hotcopy_body(&hbb, pool));
What happens now if you run a non-incremental an an incremental hotcopy almost in parallel? Even if that's not an issue, which problem does this change solve? -- Brane
