On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 19:12, Shane Hathaway <sh...@hathawaymix.org> wrote: > On 02/22/2011 09:25 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote: >> I haven't yet actually run this code, but the change isn't big. I >> didn't find any relevant tests to update. Anyone want to venture some >> feedback? > > Both ideas are excellent. The new options even open the possibility of > running the pre-pack on a copy of the database, then copying the pack > tables to the main database for a final run.
BTW, should I just commit the patch, or do you want to integrate it yourself? I'll look into working the locking idea into a patch too, but I'll need help with supporting Postgres and MySQL as I don't know their locking semantics. Another advantage of allowing re-use of the pack tables: You can abort a pack run and resume it at a later time without having to go through pre-pack. The process would race through the already removed transactions (the DELETEs and UPDATE are noops. We could perhaps short-circuit the history-aware pack by detecting that removed_objects and removed_states are both 0. -- Martijn Pieters _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
