Re: Concurrent pushes updating the same ref

[Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>]

On 11-01-06 11:30 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:46:38AM -0500, Marc Branchaud wrote:
> 
>> fatal: Unable to create
>> '/usr/xiplink/git/public/Main.git/refs/builds/3.3.0-3.lock': File exists.
>> If no other git process is currently running, this probably means a
>> git process crashed in this repository earlier. Make sure no other git
>> process is running and remove the file manually to continue.
>> fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
>>
>> I think the cause is pretty obvious, and in a normal interactive situation
>> the solution would be to simply try again.  But in a script trying again
>> isn't so straightforward.
>>
>> So I'm wondering if there's any sense or desire to make git a little more
>> flexible here.  Maybe teach it to wait and try again once or twice when it
>> sees a lock file.  I presume that normally a ref lock file should disappear
>> pretty quickly, so there shouldn't be a need to wait very long.
> 
> Yeah, we probably should try again. The simplest possible (and untested)
> patch is below. However, a few caveats:
> 
>   1. This patch unconditionally retries for all lock files. Do all
>      callers want that? I wonder if there are any exploratory lock
>      acquisitions that would rather return immediately than have some
>      delay.
> 
>   2. The number of tries and sleep time are pulled out of a hat.
> 
>   3. Even with retries, I don't know if you will get the behavior you
>      want. The lock procedure for refs is:
> 
>         1. get the lock
>         2. check and remember the sha1
>         3. release the lock
>         4. do some long-running work (like the actual push)
>         5. get the lock
>         6. check that the sha1 is the same as the remembered one
>         7. update the sha1
>         8. release the lock
> 
>      Right now you are getting contention on the lock itself. But may
>      you not also run afoul of step (6) above? That is, one push updates
>      the ref from A to B, then the other one in attempting to go from A
>      to B sees that it has already changed to B under our feet and
>      complains?

Could not anything run afoul of step (6)?  Who knows what might happen in
step (4)...

However, in my particular case I'm using a "force" refspec:

	git push origin +HEAD:refs/builds/${TAG}

so (as Shawn says) step (6) shouldn't matter, right?  Plus, all the
concurrent pushes are setting the ref to the same value anyway.

This is fairly degenerate behaviour though.

>      I can certainly think of a rule around that special case (if we are
>      going to B, and it already changed to B, silently leave it alone
>      and pretend we wrote it), but I don't know how often that would be
>      useful in the real world.

Yes -- useful in my case, but otherwise...  Still, I think it would be
more-correct to do that.

		M.