Re: [PATCH v3 12/19] initial_ref_transaction_commit(): check for duplicate refs

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> On 06/22/2015 11:06 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> What I am wondering is if we could turn the safety logic that appear
>> here (i.e. no existing refs must be assumed by the set of updates,
>> etc.)  into an optimization cue and implement this as a special case
>> helper to ref_transaction_commit(), i.e.
>> 
>> 	ref_transaction_commit(...)
>>         {
>> 		if (updates are all initial creation &&
>>                     no existing refs in repository)
>> 			return initial_ref_transaction_commit(...);
>> 		/* otherwise we do the usual thing */
>> 		...
>> 	}
>> 
>> and have "clone" call ref_transaction_commit() as usual.
>
> The safety logic in this function is (approximately) necessary, but not
> sufficient, to guarantee safety.

Oh, no question about it, and you do not even have to bring up an
insane "user runs random commands while Git is hard working on it"
non use-case ;-)

> One of the shortcuts that it takes is
> not locking the references while they are being created. Therefore, it
> would be unsafe for one process to call ref_transaction_commit() while
> another is calling initial_ref_transaction_commit(). So the caller has
> to "know" somehow that no other processes are working in the repository
> for this optimization to be safe. It conveys that knowledge by calling
> initial_ref_transaction_commit() rather than ref_transaction_commit().

OK.  So the answer to my first question "is the initial creation
logic too fragile" is a resounding "yes"; the caller should know
that it is too crazy for the user to be competing with what it is
doing before deciding to call initial_ref_transaction_commit(),
hence we cannot automatically detect if it is safe from within
ref_transaction_commit() to use this logic as an optimization.

> But I think if anything it would make more sense to go the other direction:
>
> * Teach ref_transaction_commit() an option that asks it to write
>   references updates to packed-refs instead of loose refs (but
>   locking the references as usual).
>
> * Change clone to use ref_transaction_commit() like everybody
>   else, passing it the new REFS_WRITE_TO_PACKED_REFS option.
>
> Then clone would participate in the normal locking protocol, and it
> wouldn't *matter* if another process runs before the clone is finished.

Yeah, I thought that was actually I was driving at, and doing so
without that write-to-packed-refs option, which I'd prefer to leave
it as an optimization inside ref_transaction_commit().

Except that I missed that the initial_* variant is even more
aggressive (i.e. not locking), so no such optimization is safe.

> There would also be some consistency benefits. For example, if
> core.logallrefupdates is set globally or on the command line, the
> initial reference creations would be reflogged. And other operations
> that write references in bulk could use the new
> REFS_WRITE_TO_PACKED_REFS option to prevent loose reference proliferation.
>
> But I don't think any of this is a problem in practice, and I think we
> can live with using the optimized-but-not-100%-safe
> initial_ref_transaction_commit() for cloning.

OK.