Re: [PATCH 1/4] odb: store ODB source in `struct odb_transaction`

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 05:45:16PM -0600, Justin Tobler wrote:
>> Each `struct odb_transaction` currently stores a reference to the
>> `struct object_database`. Since transactions are handled per object
>> source, instead store a reference to the source.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>> diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c
>> index e7e4c3348f..196509b252 100644
>> --- a/object-file.c
>> +++ b/object-file.c
>> @@ -728,7 +728,7 @@ static void prepare_loose_object_transaction(struct odb_transaction *transaction
>>  	if (!transaction || transaction->objdir)
>>  		return;
>>  
>> -	transaction->objdir = tmp_objdir_create(transaction->odb->repo, "bulk-fsync");
>> +	transaction->objdir = tmp_objdir_create(transaction->source->odb->repo, "bulk-fsync");
>>  	if (transaction->objdir)
>>  		tmp_objdir_replace_primary_odb(transaction->objdir, 0);
>>  }
>
> This makes me wonder whether we should first refactor the `tmp_objdir`
> subsystem to receive a source instead of a repository as input.
> Otherwise we "pretend" that the transaction is on the source level, but
> we ultimately still end up creating the temporary directory in the
> repository's object directory unconditionally.
>
> It wouldn't really change anything right now as we only ever write
> objects via the primary object source anyway, so the end result would be
> the same. But it just feels like a good first step to me to fix this
> conceptual inconsistency, and it shouldn't be too involved either as
> `tmp_objdir_create()` only has three callsites.

I agree with your "not really change anything right now" comment,
but a new odb source that will be invented in the future may not
even be file based, and a generic-sounding tmp_objdir_create() that
creates a temporary directory on the filesystem may not even be an
appropriate abstraction.

If we have two or more odb sources both are filesystem based, on the
other hand, I do not think it is particulary bad if these two odb
sources belonging to the same repository took a temporary directory
out of that repository.  As long as one temporary object directory
taken by one odb source is not used to commit the transaction into
the other odb source, it would be fine, no?

Thanks.