On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 10:40:55AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > I'm thinking of the transaction multiplexing as a kind of a hack around > sqlite's lack of fine grained locking (which would allow multiple > concurrent transactions). Instead of adding yet another hack (manual > redo log, sort of) I'd rather add support for a real RDBMS [1]. For the > server side part of the netsync story, that would make things simpler > and faster.
I'm not sure the solution is as simple as that. Postgres isn't magic; are you sure you aren't just moving the problem around? Which transaction isolation level would you be planning to use? > BTW: is netsync protocol documented somewhere? If not, I'm happy to > create such a document, as I'm trying to figure out the details anyway. Just in the (occasionally exhausti(ve|ng)) comments in netsync.cc and netcmd.* -- Nathaniel -- Electrons find their paths in subtle ways. _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
