Re: fetching packs and storing them as packs
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Oct 27, 2006, 21:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v3b99e87c.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610271310450.3849@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> We really should _never_ create a pack in-place with the final name.
The "fattening" index-pack Nico did does not have this problem as far as I can see. Under --stdin, it creates a temporary pack file "$GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY/pack_XXXXXX"; after the received pack is fattened by adding missing delta-base objects and fixing up the pack header, final() moves the {pack,idx} pair to the final location.
The race is about this sequence:
- git-receive-pack is spawned from remove git-send-pack;
it lets "index-pack --stdin --fatten" to keep the pack. - index-pack does its magic and moves the pack and idx
to their final location; - "repack -a -d" is started by somebody else; it first
remembers all the existing packs; it does the usual
repacking-into-one. - git-receive-pack that invoked the index-pack waits for
index-pack to finish, and then updates the refs; - "repack -a -d" is done repacking; removes the packs
that existed when it checked earlier.Two instances of receive-pack running simultaneously is safe (in the sense that it does not corrupt the repository; one instance can fail after noticing the other updated the ref it wanted to update) and there is no reason to exclude each other. But "repack -a -d" and receive-pack are not.
Can we perhaps have reader-writer lock on the filesystem to pretect the repository? "prune" can also be made into a writer for that lock and "fetch-pack --keep" would be a reader for the lock. That reader-writer lock would solve the issue rather nicely.
> That said, I think some of the "git repack -d" logic is also unnecessarily > fragile.
Noted; will fix.