On 2025-01-15 at 11:54:51, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> I'm attaching a patch below which should fixes the issue for me and also
> adding a test to test against the same. I'd be grateful if you could
> also test the patch against the repositoryies you mention.
Fantastic, I'll try to do that tomorrow and get back to you. I really
appreciate such a prompt response.
> diff --git a/refs/refs-internal.h b/refs/refs-internal.h
> index 16550862d3..aaab711bb9 100644
> --- a/refs/refs-internal.h
> +++ b/refs/refs-internal.h
> @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ struct ref_transaction {
> enum ref_transaction_state state;
> void *backend_data;
> unsigned int flags;
> + unsigned int max_index;
> };
>
> /*
> diff --git a/refs/reftable-backend.c b/refs/reftable-backend.c
> index 00d95a9a2f..289496058e 100644
> --- a/refs/reftable-backend.c
> +++ b/refs/reftable-backend.c
> @@ -942,6 +942,7 @@ struct write_transaction_table_arg {
> size_t updates_nr;
> size_t updates_alloc;
> size_t updates_expected;
> + unsigned int max_index;
I wonder if this and the above should be `uint64_t` instead of `unsigned
int`. From the file names and the data format, it looks like we
intentionally use a 64-bit integer. That's good, because I have
unfortunately seen some people who have created giant test repositories
with really unreasonable numbers of commits and I could see us possibly
exceeding a 32-bit integer here.
--
brian m. carlson (they/them or he/him)
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
