Perhaps xpost this to dev@ at some point :)
Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 18:44:29 +0000: > Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +0000, Philip Martin wrote: > >> I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children > >> notification used by 1.6. I wonder if that notification order is > >> important? > > > > See r1196191. > > It should preserve the 1.6.x order (via svn_path_compare_paths()). > > > >> A patch that we could commit without affecting the order is: > >> > >> Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql > >> =================================================================== > >> --- subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql (revision 1196106) > >> +++ subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql (working copy) > >> @@ -1193,7 +1193,7 @@ > >> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE delete_list ( > >> /* ### we should put the wc_id in here in case a delete spans multiple > >> ### working copies. queries, etc will need to be adjusted. */ > >> - local_relpath TEXT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL > >> + local_relpath TEXT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL UNIQUE > >> ) > > > > Interesting. Can you explain why this doesn't affect order? > > Because I retained ORDER BY in the select statement. > > > I guess this works because there is only one column in the table? > > Do UNIQUE columns happen to be inserted, or selected, in sorted order? > > UNIQUE simple means that an index is created so the ORDER BY is fast. > > -- > Philip
