From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 20:13:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] reftable: ensure tables in a stack use sequential update indices
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZQxM_iRMLoKt2ZoTSngkQ3EzXiJJ9hiJxRqHSaq2o0Nfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqikh7lob7.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:


>>> 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").

Wouldn't 'monotonically increasing' suggest that
prev_table.max_update_index can be equal to cur_table.min_update_index?
I have locally changed it to 'ascending order' for similar reasons.