Replace the sessionstore.js with an sessionstore.sqlite
Categories
(Firefox :: Session Restore, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: BesTo, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug, )
Details
Crash Data
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Comment 17•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 20•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 21•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 22•2 years ago
|
||
I'm pretty sure that our opinion on SQLite didn't change. It is much more likely to progress towards a journaled storage in the future.
My understanding is that this ticket is WONTFIX because of an unimplemented solution of a "journaled storage" that is better. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is the case, I would like to clear up some misunderstandings I see regarding sqlite
journaled storage
Sqlite is exactly that, a mature implementation of a journaled storage. Especially using it in WAL mode, with PRAGMA synchronous=NORMAL
it guarantees ACI semantics while being very frugal in the amount of writes sync'd to disk.
The problem with a SQLite file is that it would be even less human-readable than the current JavaScript file
The current jsonlz4 files is not possible to open without special tools, unavailable through the usual channels. On the contrary, sqlite files are easy to open using the default sqlite
tool.
backups
AFAIK sessionstore is backed up because if the OS crashes while being written, it can get corrupted. Backups should be unnecessary for sqlite files given the consistency guarantees of WAL mode. Do you keep backups for places.sqlite
? In any case if backups are needed the process is well documented.
it would break a number of add-ons;
Is this still an issue?
it would slow down first session restore, hence firefox startup
Indeed, but numbers are needed. My impression is that for the usual (small sessionstore) users the slow-down would be negligible. For the users with many tabs it might take longer (needs numbers) but the improvement because of reduced writes should be totally worth it.
it will not solve any of the main issues that we are trying to fix
The main issue it would solve is reducing the amount and frequency of I/O: bug 1304389 is a very popular bug. See also bug 810932.
Given the new information, would you consider re-opening this ticket?
Description
•