Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 31/33] refs: add LMDB refs storage backend

From: David Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:35:38 -0500

On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 08:31 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:53 AM, David Turner <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
> > +Weaknesses:
> > +-----------
> > +
> > +The reflog format is somewhat inefficient: a binary format could
> > store
> > +reflog date/time information in somewhat less space.
> 
> This raises an interesting question. What if we want to change lmdb
> format in future (e.g. to address this weakness)? Do we need some
> sort
> of versioning in lmdb database? I suppose you can always add "lmdb2"
> backend that shares most of the code with current lmdb backend. Not
> sure if that's what you had in mind though.

The weakness of versioning inside the LMDB database is that in order to
check the version, you need to already have LMDB.  That's the argument
for "lmdb2". 

I had sort of hoped that this version would be "good enough" that we
could avoid modifying it.  So maybe that means we ought to address the
reflog format.  But I'm not sure that it's that big a deal.  What do
you think?