You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net> on 2003/02/28 22:18:47 UTC

Re: Server side configs

Hey,

> Yeah, I re-looked at what you did and realized they are very compatible. 

Well, compatible isn't really true:-)  Since none of my existing 
fsrefactor code needs the svn_config_t *yet*, I'm pulling  that out of 
my master patch for now.  I still need something more robust long-term.  

My SQL support code is definitely impacted by your approach.  So, I'm 
trying to get a better handle on templates. Specifically, in-repos 
templates threw me.  Are they more narrow in scope than on-disk 
templates? It seems we could never have config information in an 
in-repos template that is required to successfully open a repos. But, 
on-disk templates potentially could.  Were they intended only for hooks 
and other non DB specific configuration? Or was DB configuration *ever* 
supposed to be part of their charter?  Are there some good thread 
discussions I can go read?  

Thanks,
gat


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Server side configs

Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
Hey,

>The templates are a mechanism for an administrator to easily crank out
>preconstructed and preconfigured repositories.
>  
>
OK this is what I thought.

>  on-disk templates specify the files and dirs on disk. Yes, these could
>    contain config files for <whatever>, including DB config files.
>
>  in-repos templates specify what revision 1 of the repository will look
>    like. That definitely cannot specify a config, since it exists at an
>    entirely different semantic level.
>    (not yet implemented)
>  
>
Hmmm.  This is interesting.  It brings to mind one of a couple things I 
remember putting on my "needs to be worked out" list.
I'm still re-engaging my brain on all this FS stuff, as you know it's 
not for the faint of heart:-)  Buuuut.
I remember wanting to ask about the possibility of making the repos 
create more atomic.  Not for the usual protection reasons.  As I recall 
there are two separate steps which result in the creation of a repos 
which is "ready for action".  Step one was setting up the tables and 
step two was inserting the initial data.
I have a mechanism to do this as a single step completely from config 
files.  It allows me to create different schemas different ways for 
different DBs. I remember having a little difficulty "priming the pump" 
(using the two step approach) with either Oracle or MySQL can't recall. 
 I'll re-find my problem soon enough I guess:-)
Anyway if memory serves it was related to revision 0.  Is what you 
mention above related to this or is it for something else, and if so, 
what? 

>For BDB-based systems, the database config exists inside the db/
>subdirectory, and (for safety reasons) libsvn_fs will not construct a BDB
>environment in an already-existing directory. Thus, you cannot prepopulate
>the db/DB_CONFIG file using on-disk templates. If somebody can think of a
>way to do so, then we can do the necessary tweaks.
>
>[ one idea might be to create the db/ subdir *first*, then use the template
>  to drop files into the repos, possibly overwriting db/DB_CONFIG; but that
>  just seems way dangerous to me... ]
>
Me too.  I'll get it worked out after I get my current patch fully in 
place.

Thanks,
gat


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Server side configs

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:18:47PM -0500, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
>...
> My SQL support code is definitely impacted by your approach.  So, I'm 
> trying to get a better handle on templates. Specifically, in-repos 
> templates threw me.  Are they more narrow in scope than on-disk 
> templates? It seems we could never have config information in an 
> in-repos template that is required to successfully open a repos. But, 
> on-disk templates potentially could.  Were they intended only for hooks 
> and other non DB specific configuration? Or was DB configuration *ever* 
> supposed to be part of their charter?  Are there some good thread 
> discussions I can go read?  

The templates are a mechanism for an administrator to easily crank out
preconstructed and preconfigured repositories.

  on-disk templates specify the files and dirs on disk. Yes, these could
    contain config files for <whatever>, including DB config files.

  in-repos templates specify what revision 1 of the repository will look
    like. That definitely cannot specify a config, since it exists at an
    entirely different semantic level.
    (not yet implemented)

For BDB-based systems, the database config exists inside the db/
subdirectory, and (for safety reasons) libsvn_fs will not construct a BDB
environment in an already-existing directory. Thus, you cannot prepopulate
the db/DB_CONFIG file using on-disk templates. If somebody can think of a
way to do so, then we can do the necessary tweaks.

[ one idea might be to create the db/ subdir *first*, then use the template
  to drop files into the repos, possibly overwriting db/DB_CONFIG; but that
  just seems way dangerous to me... ]

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org