Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So the other direction, instead of avoiding the memory limit in (4), is > to stop closing "small" packs in (2). But I don't think that's a good > idea. Even with the code after David's patch, you can still trigger the > problem by running out of file descriptors. And if we stop closing > small packs, that makes it even more likely for that to happen. I recall that when we notice that we cannot access a loose one that we earlier thought existed we fall back to rescan the packs? Would an approach similar to that can work to deal with the "closed small pack goes away" scenario?
