From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 961342E8B8A for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 06:12:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758780760; cv=none; b=Sz3CMJ1LVHIbdXvEkRczz4Xly5cMWdcPAVTERQkr10csJg4wQv1/VYnHXYf00WFicQVqFcb1Iz79ePi7p+bYlNLnJha5DQ5oojlu4Qgbbgl5dER251XbDOiA2AFHIMAXjTSeDSqm+OjWWQKfhB8bzgO5Wk8mkrwmI8LunAmo/Bg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758780760; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aqdERfJbJu4NMbzkwqsUQ9dpsFXMYoNLl5+P7ipH5ho=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ox9UTcpfbtCsSc7ndkcMvrB9hy2GwFV2rbE85BpJDfiXgR/H9rabWvK1ODQHs71eTE+MYHUkeeV6CyBhA/TOksD1vCU1z+r3O0GblsgAFvztzNq7V79cF+S3usfd1M3P3hWeJjFqCFYsbI1Wn15bkRQt0PtWktmt1MegwF8GoQg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=SF4s2ClR; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=oAUGq4Dn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="SF4s2ClR"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="oAUGq4Dn" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7692E1D000CF; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 02:12:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 Sep 2025 02:12:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1758780756; x=1758867156; bh=RWAS2WIbrX vpHDtiWchGTpfdhmQPyFpD8XpLTRSCt4w=; b=SF4s2ClR+bFEu7uP88gYSoHfwP umxWEMl7diZ8x4B2iSBthUHUygMcH+VfyoUAPW/zZVDMzSuwprvzPO1lxxtsVu6g ZqYSnwqxelIc+WQptbtrNuhFzgbdLa2+rEAM2MzCXpRUG65xPUzihTXu2ppX68Np dTKgNzDlHkOh11f2Daeh+XtJEjxmaX6bdqtXA7h4GjQ/8PT6afPLTyrm6T8yU+XH mZThyx96K9kLZ/OQneN3YGD0+iwKUod3R81ome+EUBHQup3pRTFQkXLNdfwwAPeo NOBFxg9dio9zN03R2QRplaxJYJa9HPBPOc8PmcEKqEZUZZHqiG34x5HZppew== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1758780756; x=1758867156; bh=RWAS2WIbrXvpHDtiWchGTpfdhmQPyFpD8Xp LTRSCt4w=; b=oAUGq4DnpB472Bkm5X46z4PMsnModTYPjOuQV+IXz2V3Bbclp4O HNRxhopsgX0plnywsBSeAL38T8MrvYPH/HzmohUwoR2LT1GXYlItiXQM7YiDVzEA zMDH1kGrEpYVXIgQzoT6r2tkfSB0sRyhqYo1KU8W2oWuZ+fpUvUU1C/DmaFSCfxc OCeZD9Vpc/79/uPpgynUfUK8lwHSfSt6qD9IzKm14mljFkfO3mcmilKrmITnO9Mn 8w2cgm6T9z7HNCMkctkM8ytHmm5a2hPdqzNf+Ph62nx/63ZWvOZKQQ62zcBHoa5h u8kIUhRCABLCikA9zylXgED6rfSrDRSV5lA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdeiheejgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghk ucfuthgvihhnhhgrrhguthcuoehpshesphhkshdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpe evkeekfffhiedtleduiefgjedttedvledvudehgfeugedugffhueekhfejvdektdenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpshesphhksh drihhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeegpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthho pehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrd hkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhkrddukeeksehgmhgrihhl rdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshhhvghjihgrlhhuohesghhmrghilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 02:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id f94e2951 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Thu, 25 Sep 2025 06:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:12:30 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Karthik Nayak Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, shejialuo@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] reftable: ensure tables in a stack use sequential update indices Message-ID: References: <20250918-228-reftable-introduce-consistency-checks-v3-0-271af03eb34d@gmail.com> <20250918-228-reftable-introduce-consistency-checks-v3-4-271af03eb34d@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 01:13:51PM -0700, Karthik Nayak wrote: > Junio C Hamano 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. I guess the correct phrase here is "strictly monotonically increasing". Patrick