Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] core.fsync: introduce granular fsync control

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:17:31AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.

Is there anything I can specifically do to help out with this topic? We
have again hit data loss in production because we don't sync loose refs
to disk before renaming them into place, so I'd really love to sort out
this issue somehow so that I can revive my patch series which fixes the
known repository corruption [1].

Alternatively, can we maybe find a way forward with applying a version
of my patch series without first settling the bigger question of how we
want the overall design to look like? In my opinion repository
corruption is a severe bug that needs to be fixed, and it doesn't feel
sensible to block such a fix over a discussion that potentially will
take a long time to settle.

Patrick

[1]: http://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1636544377.git.ps@pks.im/