Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] maintenance: separate parallelism safe and unsafe tasks

> On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 11:07 PM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> > >       [TASK_LOOSE_OBJECTS] = {
> > >               "loose-objects",
> > >               maintenance_task_loose_objects,
> > >               loose_object_auto_condition,
> > > +             SAFE,
> > >       },
> > >       [TASK_INCREMENTAL_REPACK] = {
> > >               "incremental-repack",
> > >               maintenance_task_incremental_repack,
> > >               incremental_repack_auto_condition,
> > > +             SAFE,
> > > +     },
> > > +     [TASK_UNSAFE_GC] = {
> > > +             "unsafe-gc",
> > > +             maintenance_task_unsafe_gc,
> > > +             need_to_gc,
> > > +             UNSAFE,
> > > +             0,
> > > +     },
> > > +     [TASK_SAFE_GC] = {
> > > +             "safe-gc",
> > > +             maintenance_task_safe_gc,
> > > +             need_to_gc,
> > > +             SAFE,
> > > +             0,
> > >       },
> >
> > Hm. I wonder whether we really want to expose additional tasks to
> > address the issue, which feels like we're leaking implementation details
> > to our users. Would it maybe be preferable to instead introduce a new
> > optional callback function for every task that handles the pre-detach
> > logic?
> 
> This does sound like a good idea. However, would there be any issue
> with running all pre-detach logic before running post-detach logic?
> I'm thinking if pre-detach logic from a different function could
> affect post-detach logic from another. If not, I do agree this would
> be the best solution going forward.