Chris Withers wrote at 2006-10-4 15:06 +0100: > ... >The interesting thing is that it looks like the transactions where the >time appears to go backwards are duplicates of earlier transactions: > >position in file tid time from tid >31025376233 0x03689abb582f1311 2006-10-03 04:43:20.668098 >31025376508 0x03689abdbbe5f000 2006-10-03 04:45:44.038639 >31025376783 0x03689abddbe6be55 2006-10-03 04:45:51.539377 > >...lots of transactions... > >31025646913 0x03689abb582f1311 2006-10-03 04:43:20.668098 >31025647188 0x03689abdbbe5f000 2006-10-03 04:45:44.038639 >31025647463 0x03689abddbe6be55 2006-10-03 04:45:51.539377 > >Would this seem to be an accurate reading of the attached log?
It looks as if you had given the same incremental file twice to "repozo". >1. Could repozo have a bug that resulted in this? Maybe, especially when the same file is twice integrated >2. If repozo has no bug, should it have checking that makes sure it > doesn't build insane .fs files, or is fstest the way to go for that? As "fstest" found this problem, it was not too bad. >3. If repozo is not to blame, what could be? One possibility would be a bad call. -- Dieter _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
