Re: [PATCH 00/17] object-store: carve out the object database subsystem

From: Toon Claes <toon@iotcl.com>
Date: May 13, 2025, 19:28 UTC
Message-ID: <87a57gjoo1.fsf@iotcl.com>
In-Reply-To: <aB3mMtoxCcaOFn0W@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> ... I have decided to rename this to `odb_alternate`. I don't think
> "shard" works well, as shard is an extremely generic term that doesn't
> really convey much meaning.
>
> On the other hand, I think that `odb_alternate` is quite a good fit. We
> already use it all over the place to mean almost exactly what we are
> after here. And it doesn't seem far-fetched to have an
> `odb_packed_alternate`, `odb_loose_alternate` and `odb_redis_alternate`
> for different backends.

So a database is a collection of alternates? And the alternates are stored as a linked list?

> The only stretch is that the primary object directory is now the primary
> alternate. I think that this is acceptable though'

This is a very important nuance, and with that knowledge it starts to click with me. I didn't read this in the commit messages though, so I think it's worth adding something about that in [PATCH 02/17].

-- 
Toon