On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 02:44:57PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> > That means we're holding the packed-refs lock for a slightly longer
> > period. I think this could mean worse lock contention between otherwise
> > unrelated transactions over the packed-refs file. I wonder if the
> >
On 09/08/2017 09:38 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:20:32AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>> First, the old code didn't obtain the `packed-refs` lock until
>> `files_transaction_finish()`. This means that a failure to acquire the
>> `packed-refs` lock (e.g., due to contention
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:20:32AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> First, the old code didn't obtain the `packed-refs` lock until
> `files_transaction_finish()`. This means that a failure to acquire the
> `packed-refs` lock (e.g., due to contention with another process)
> wasn't detected until
When processing a `files_ref_store` transaction, it is sometimes
necessary to delete some references from the "packed-refs" file. Do
that using a reference transaction conducted against the
`packed_ref_store`.
This change further decouples `files_ref_store` from
`packed_ref_store`. It also fixes
4 matches
Mail list logo
