Re: Asynchronous structured exception handling (SEH) in TortoiseProc (/EHa)

Ivan Zhakov <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.tortoisesvn.devel
Message-ID <CABw-3Yf8d2TvEw-dneVPGmHznu=RQBj3CPYiiXTqn9+3Q5YJ1g@mail.gmail.com>
On 25 February 2016 at 22:38, Stefan Kueng <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25.02.2016 10:37, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>
>>> the log cache is optimized for speed. For example, you can show the log
>>> for
>>> the whole KDE or Apache repository (including all subproject). Then show
>>> the
>>> log again and you get *all* entries within about two/three seconds.
>>> But for more details, you have to ask Stefan Fuhrmann ;)
>>
>>
>> SQLite is very performant when there's little concurrency (as it is
>> with the log caching). I wonder, what was the reason of not using it
>> for this purpose and re-implementing everything manually.
>
> I think one reason was also memory use: if you have the whole log data for
> e.g. the Apache repository in memory, that's quite a lot.
>
SQLite doesn't load the whole DB to memory and could easily handle
several gigabytes of data.

>> Btw we started to convert some abort() calls in status-fetching code
>> to normal errors in Subversion.
>
>
> Finally!
> I've asked for this many, many times until I gave up arguing...
>
:)

>
>> It took a little bit longer than I expected but as of r27210 log cache
>> should gracefully handle most common database corruptions. There are
>> still some cases when TortoiseSVN trunk will crash with a corrupted
>> log cache, but TortoiseSVN 1.9.3 may also crash in these cases. I'm
>> going to fix these edge cases later.
>
>
> I've checked your commits and I agree it's much better now.
>
Thanks!

>> I disabled asynchronous structured exception handling (SEH) in
>> TortoiseProc in r27211.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>> What do you think about backporting these changes to 1.9.x? Changes
>> are not small, but they fix real crashes.
>
>
> I think we should wait for about a week: I'd like to have a nightly build in
> use here for a while before we merge those changes back.
>
> And about merging back: would you do that? Not sure which revisions you want
> to merge...
>
Sure, there is no rush for backporting these changes to 1.9.x branch.
But it would be nice to get these fixes in 1.9.x branch someday.

I think it makes sense to backport all log cache changes, i.e:
27183-27192,27194-27196,27199-27211.
These changes merges cleanly to 1.9.x branch. I could do that.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov

------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=757&dsMessageId=3162973

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]].
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.