19.05.2014 19:47, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
I would like to submit an attached patch.
You would do everybody a favor if the patch was cleaned from the useless
stuff (commented out code).
Dmitry
--
Open source
05.07.2014 12:12, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
You would do everybody a favor if the patch was cleaned from the useless
stuff (commented out code).
This commented out code was supposed to make review easier, but ok, I'll
clean it up.
--
WBR, SD.
I would like to submit an attached patch. It does following things:
I'll look at it but don't expect quick review.
Regards,
Vlad
--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Dimitry Sibiryakov s...@ibphoenix.comwrote:
:
Can you explain erase in place briefly?
I simply call update_in_place() with delete stub from VIO_erase() if
the head record
version is marked with the same transaction number. I.e. the same logic
used as
20.05.2014 16:31, Ann Harrison wrote:
If a transaction deletes a record in which the latest version was created by
a different
transaction, you create a separate deleted stub, just as before.
Right?
Yes, sure.
--
WBR, SD.
Hello, All.
I would like to submit an attached patch. It does following things:
1) Fix CORE-4382, CORE-4383 and CORE-4424.
2) Fix unregistered case of missing index entries and blob ids after releasing one
savepoint of many (list_staying() didn't take into account versions in memory undo
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov s...@ibphoenix.comwrote:
6) Implement erase-in-place which leads to significant code simplification.
Can you explain erase in place briefly? In specific, how is it undone in
a catastrophic failure (i.e. not a transaction cleanup)?
Thanks,
19.05.2014 18:23, Ann Harrison wrote:
Can you explain erase in place briefly? In specific, how is it undone in a
catastrophic
failure (i.e. not a transaction cleanup)?
I simply call update_in_place() with delete stub from VIO_erase() if the
head record
version is marked with the same
