From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC7E1F852 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348592AbiBNRRs (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:17:48 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:47876 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242400AbiBNRRq (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:17:46 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9840FC4F for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:17:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549EC1862F1; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:17:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=xHgQo3FuKLwlA60RNFWq9ItL4LBbGGW5LuQrFv bxunA=; b=LAUWp1m9QN3SLesKF48njBmt9NvhnMZZ1Ch+59Wt9/nuIgoVi9PrCW IP2b39Hcvb9lag2sgRM46Jzqo1U/EUVo59o/n0khnpn8839fg3S5AU6ugnZb6+qG pPqTKYWLB4h8cTo1KYtO6/GGcdvaNWOKTZEsQwkFHWh+V4o4MC6t4= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FBA1862F0; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:17:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.185.212.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A7601862EF; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:17:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Neeraj Singh , Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget , Git List , "Randall S. Becker" , Bagas Sanjaya , Elijah Newren , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , "Neeraj K. Singh" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] core.fsync: introduce granular fsync control References: <7a164ba95710b4231d07982fd27ec51022929b81.1643686425.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:17:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:04:58 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FEB280DE-8DB9-11EC-B26A-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Patrick Steinhardt writes: > To summarize my take: while the degree of durability may be something > that's up for discussions, I think that the current defaults for > atomicity are bad for users because they can and do lead to repository > corruption. Good summary. If the user cares about fsynching loose object files in the right way, we shouldn't leave loose ref files not following the safe safety level, regardless of how this new core.fsync knobs would look like. I think we three are in agreement on that.