[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3085?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14624727#comment-14624727
]
Julian Reschke commented on OAK-3085:
-------------------------------------
Chetan: thanks for starting this thread.
We currently have no mechanism to special case collections in the persistence
implementations. The nodes table being cached while the others are not already
is somewhat a hack.
Changing the table layout in the RDBDocumentStore based on the collection type
surely is possible, but IMHO it's totally unclear whether the benefits justify
the additional complexity.
So again: let's have a proper discussion of the API and the implicit contract.
If this is urgent, re-using _modified still sounds like a reasonable
alternative to me.
> Add timestamp property to journal entries
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-3085
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3085
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core, mongomk
> Affects Versions: 1.2.2, 1.3.2
> Reporter: Stefan Egli
> Fix For: 1.2.3, 1.3.3
>
> Attachments: OAK-3085.patch, OAK-3085.v2.patch
>
>
> OAK-3001 is about improving the JournalGarbageCollector by querying on a
> separated-out timestamp property (rather than the id that encapsulated the
> timestamp).
> In order to remove OAK-3001 as a blocker ticket from the 1.2.3 release, this
> ticket is about adding a timestamp property to the journal entry but not
> making use of it yet. Later on, when OAK-3001 is tackled, this timestamp
> property already exists and migration is not an issue anymore (as 1.2.3
> introduces the journal entry first time)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
