Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] reftable: ensure tables in a stack use sequential update indices

>>> Now if we compact the second and the third table, the compaction will
>>> realize that r2 is deleted and thus no longer needs to be part of the
>>> compacted table. So the new state is:
>>>
>>>   - A base table with record r1 and update index r1.
>>>   - The compacted table with record r3 with update index 3.
>> ...
>> However, I think your point  holds. I do think eventually we could
>> optimize this to ensure that we do something like you described.
>>
>> I will make changes accordingly.
>
> If you allow gaps in the indices, it is a bit confusing to call them
> "sequential"; "monotonically increasing" is less confusing and it
> conveys the author's intention to allow gaps clear (otherwise the
> author wouldn't be using such an awkward two-word phrase instead of
> "sequencial").