"Bert Huijben" <b...@vmoo.com> writes: > STMT_INSERT_ACTUAL_NODE does an insert or replace, which might be invalid in > this case.
Do you mean because copy should not replace an ACTUAL node? I suppose that's true. One of the things I am still struggling with is what checking should happen and where. For example, it's not valid to copy a source node with BASE.presence=not-present as the root of a copy, but it is valid as a child of a root. Should svn_wc__db_op_copy enforce that? Should svn_wc_copy3 check instead, or should it rely on svn_wc__db_op_copy to check, or should both check? It's more effecient to do the check in svn_wc_copy3 as that is where the recursion happens. If the wc is locked does that make it valid to check in svn_wc_copy3? Where should we check for a lock is another thing I am struggling with. > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:33 AM, <phi...@apache.org> wrote: > > Author: philip > Date: Tue Jun 1 08:33:08 2010 > New Revision: 949964 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=949964 > <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=949964&view=rev> &view=rev > Log: > * subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c > (temp_cross_db_copy): Bind all the parameters when copying the > ACTUAL_NODE, use a blob for properties. -- Philip
