Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Karthik > > On 07/02/2025 07:34, Karthik Nayak wrote: >> Git's reference updates are traditionally atomic > > I'm nitpicking but the updates aren't actually atomic, if a transaction > updates two refs then it is possible for another process to see the one > ref pointing to the new value and the other pointing to the old value. > Good point. This is true in the case of the files backend, since updates involve locking individual files and during the commit phase, there is a possibility that one ref is updated while the other is yet to be (committing of the lock is not global but rather per ref file). However this is not the case with the reftable backend, there, updates are written to a new table and committed at the end after locking the table. So in the reftable backend, this is indeed atomic. >> - when updating >> multiple references in a transaction, either all updates succeed or none >> do. While this behavior is generally desirable, > > Isn't that the whole point of transactions? > Yup, this is the point of having a transaction indeed. >> it can be limiting in> certain scenarios, particularly with the reftable backend where batching >> multiple reference updates is more efficient than performing them >> sequentially. >> >> This series introduces support for partial reference transactions, >> allowing individual reference updates to fail while letting others >> proceed. > > This sounds like it's abusing ref transactions to implement a > performance optimization. I understand where you're coming from. This is definitely a stray from the regular atomic behavior, that transactions promise. But I would say this is more of an exception handling for the regular transaction mechanism and AFAIK this is also something that some of the databases support (see EXCEPTION in PostgreSQL). Overall, we're adding an exception handling support to the existing transaction interface. > I wonder if it would be better to provide that > via a different interface than shares the same underling implementation > as transactions. That would make it clear to someone reading the code > that individual ref updates can fail without affecting the rest. Burying > that detail in a flag makes it rather easy to miss. > Thinking this out, having a different interface sound good, but I feel we'd end up with the same structure as currently presented in this series. Only other way is to really split the implementation to support partial transactions as a entity of its own. In that case, we'd end up with code duplication. Do you think you can expand a little more here? > Best Wishes > > Phillip > Thanks for engaging! [snip]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
