On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:26:14PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:01:04PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > In 525e18c04b (midx: clear midx on repack, 2018-07-12), 'git repack'
> > learned to remove a multi-pack-index file if it added or removed a pack
> > from the object store.
> >
> > This mechanism is a little over-eager, since it is only necessary to
> > drop a MIDX if 'git repack' removes a pack that the MIDX references.
> > Adding a pack outside of the MIDX does not require invalidating the
> > MIDX, and likewise for removing a pack the MIDX does not know about.
>
> Does "git repack" ever remove just one pack? Obviously "git repack -ad"
> or "git repack -Ad" is going to pack everything and delete the old
> packs. So I think we'd want to remove a midx there.
>
> And "git repack -d" I think of as deleting only loose objects that we
> just packed. But I guess it could also remove a pack that has now been
> made redundant? That seems like a rare case in practice, but I suppose
> is possible.
Yeah, the patch message makes this sound more likely than it actually
is, which I agree is very rare. I often write 'git repack' instead of
'git pack-objects' to slurp up everything loose into a new pack without
having to list loose objects by name.
That's the case that I really care about here: purely adding a new pack
should not invalidate the existing MIDX.
> Not exactly related to your fix, but kind of the flip side of it: would
> we ever need to retain a midx that mentions some packs that still exist?
>
> E.g., imagine we have a midx that points to packs A and B, and
> git-repack deletes B. By your logic above, we need to remove the midx
> because now it points to objects in B which aren't accessible. But by
> deleting it, could we be deleting the only thing that mentions the
> objects in A?
>
> I _think_ the answer is "no", because we never went all-in on midx and
> allowed deleting the matching .idx files for contained packs. So we'd
> still have that A.idx, and we could just use the pack as normal. But
> it's an interesting corner case if we ever do go in that direction.
Agreed. Maybe a (admittedly somewhat large) #leftoverbits.
> If you'll let me muse a bit more on midx-lifetime issues (which I've
> never really thought about before just now):
>
> I'm also a little curious how bad it is to have a midx whose pack has
> gone away. I guess we'd answer queries for "yes, we have this object"
> even if we don't, which is bad. Though in practice we'd only delete
> those packs if we have their objects elsewhere. And the pack code is
> pretty good about retrying other copies of objects that can't be
> accessed. Alternatively, I wonder if the midx-loading code ought to
> check that all of the constituent packs are available.
>
> In that line of thinking, do we even need to delete midx files if one of
> their packs goes away? The reading side probably ought to be able to
> handle that gracefully.
I think that this is probably the right direction, although I've only
spend time in the MIDX code over the past couple of weeks, so I can't
say with authority. It seems like it would be pretty annoying, though.
For example, code that cares about listing all objects in a MIDX would
have to check first whether the pack they're in still exists before
emitting them. On top of that, there are more corner cases when object X
exists in more than one pack, but some strict subset of those packs
containing X have gone away.
I don't think that it couldn't be done, though.
> And the more interesting case is when you repack everything with "-ad"
> or similar, at which point you shouldn't even need to look up what's in
> the midx to see if you deleted its packs. The point of your operation is
> to put it all-into-one, so you know the old midx should be discarded.
>
> > Teach 'git repack' to check for this by loading the MIDX, and checking
> > whether the to-be-removed pack is known to the MIDX. This requires a
> > slightly odd alternation to a test in t5319, which is explained with a
> > comment.
>
> My above musings aside, this seems like an obvious improvement.
>
> > diff --git a/builtin/repack.c b/builtin/repack.c
> > index 04c5ceaf7e..98fac03946 100644
> > --- a/builtin/repack.c
> > +++ b/builtin/repack.c
> > @@ -133,7 +133,11 @@ static void get_non_kept_pack_filenames(struct string_list *fname_list,
> > static void remove_redundant_pack(const char *dir_name, const char *base_name)
> > {
> > struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> > - strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s/%s.pack", dir_name, base_name);
> > + struct multi_pack_index *m = get_multi_pack_index(the_repository);
> > + strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s.pack", base_name);
> > + if (m && midx_contains_pack(m, buf.buf))
> > + clear_midx_file(the_repository);
> > + strbuf_insertf(&buf, 0, "%s/", dir_name);
>
> Makes sense. midx_contains_pack() is a binary search, so we'll spend
> O(n log n) effort deleting the packs (I wondered if this might be
> accidentally quadratic over the number of packs).
Right. The MIDX stores packs in lexographic order, so checking them is
O(log n), which we do at most 'n' times.
> And after we clear, "m" will be NULL, so we'll do it at most once. Which
> is why you can get rid of the manual "midx_cleared" flag from the
> preimage.
Yep. I thought briefly about passing 'm' as a parameter, but then you
have to worry about a dangling reference to
'the_repository->objects->multi_pack_index' after calling
'clear_midx_file()', so it's easier to look it up each time.
> So the patch looks good to me.
Thanks.
> -Peff
Thanks,
Taylor
