Evan Driscoll wrote on Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:31:32 -0600: > On 1/27/2012 3:41, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Evan Driscoll wrote on Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 15:04:43 -0600: > >> 1. Did removing rep-cache.db fix it, or is there still a potential for > >> some latent repository corruption? > > > > Yes. rep-cache.db is used by the commit process. If that file was > > silently corrupted, it's possible that the text: and props: > > lines on node-revisions point to invalid data. (In English: versioned > > properties, file contents, and symlinks targets may be affected.) > > > > I think the list archives and the developer docs explain this, so I'm > > not going into detail here. But feel free to follow up (on list) if you > > have questions that those don't cover. > > I ran 'svnadmin verify' (as Mark Cooke suggested) and it did not > indicate any problems. Does that mean there aren't any (or that the > probability is vanishingly small)?
No. If SQLite returned wrong answers when queried (as opposed to declaring itself corrupt), it's possible that a commit process would have set the contents of a committed revision to the contents of some old file rather than to the newly-submitted contents. 'svnadmin verify' cannot identify such a corruption. How likely it is --- judge for yourself. > > Evan > >
