On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:48:52PM +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: > In terms of the type of data, our data and fossil's data is very > different, but in terms of the time it takes to synchronize large data > stores/repositories, we're in the exact same situation. We don't expect > synchronizations to fail; they rarely will, but it will happen sooner or > later, so we were forced to find a way to skip work that has already > been done.
Correct. One possible approach is to mark new artefacts in a separate "to parse" table, add them to that list after every round trip and maybe even do a commit in case of power down. Afterwards, process that table. It doesn't even require many changes to the code as the approach taken is essentially the same, just using in-memory storage. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
