Git VS gh-ost

Boy, I can't find this either (but also, the kernel mailing list is _really_ difficult to search). I really remember Linus saying something like "it's not a real SCM, but maybe someone could build one on top of it someday" or something like that, but I cannot figure out how to find that.

You _can_ see, though, that in his first README, he refers to what he's building as not a "real SCM":

https://github.com/git/git/commit/e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23...

Here is the direct link, as HN somehow removes the query string: https://github.com/git/git/commits?author=peff&since=2023-10...

I understand all that.

I'm saying, if you write a survey and one of the possible answers is "diff", but you don't clearly define what you mean by "diff", then don't be surprised if respondents use any reasonable definition that makes sense to them. Ask an ambiguous question, get a mishmash of answers.

The thing that Git uses for packfiles is called a "delta" by Git, but it's also reasonable to call it a "diff". After all, Git's delta algorithm is "greatly inspired by parts of LibXDiff from Davide Libenzi"[1]. Not LibXDelta but LibXDiff.

Yes, how Git stores blobs (using deltas) is orthogonal to how Git uses blobs. But while that orthogonality is useful for reasoning about Git, it's not wrong to think of a commit as the totality of what Git does, including that optimization. (Some people, when learning Git, stumble over the way it's described as storing full copies, think it's wasteful. For them to wrap their heads around Git, they have to understand that the optimization exists. Which makes sense because Git probably wouldn't be practical if it lacked that optimization.)

The reason I'm bringing all this up is, if you're trying to explain Git, which is what the original article is about, then it's very important to keep in mind that someone who is learning Git needs to know what you mean when you say "diff". Most people who already know Git would tend to gravitate toward the definition of "diff" that you're assuming (the thing that Git computes on the fly and never stores), but people who already know Git aren't the target audience when you're teaching Git.

---

[1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/diff-delta.c

Didn't Git have a new default merge strategy, `ort` https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/RelNote... ?

Yes, but you are referring to standalone scripts, not functions defined within a Bash script.

Compare for example the following helper code used for git command completion inside Bash and inside PowerShell.

Bash: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/completion/gi...

I’ve been through multiple incidents where everything worked fine in the testing environment but ended up locking the production database for minutes when deployed. A category of open-source tools called OSC (Online Schema Change) exists to mitigate such pain, like gh-ost used by GitHub and OSC used by Meta. They work by creating a set of "ghost tables" to apply the migrations, copy over old data from the original tables, and catch up with new writes simultaneously. When all old data is migrated, you can trigger a cutover to make the "ghost tables" production. Check the post below for a great introduction and comparison:

Sounds like it's basically explained in the gh-ost readme https://github.com/github/gh-ost#how

I think it amounts to "use views to decouple access to the table with a fixed interface" and "use triggers for migrating data between tables"

Gh-ost is the new hotness. Simple to use and lots of great features: https://github.com/github/gh-ost

If the performance of the db is a concern during migrations (locking, high cpu consumption for large writes) there are tools that can help and do similiar to what your describing but with the benefit that they are battle tested tools. This one spring to mind https://github.com/github/gh-ost there are other options as well and its worth reading the trade off docs

Not sure which version of MySQL you're using, but one approach would be to use a tool like pt-online-schema-change (from Percona) or g-host -- which will create a duplicate table and then swap it in place of the original table. It's a safer approach when operating in production environments. Here's a good comparison of the tools many people use https://planetscale.com/docs/learn/online-schema-change-tools-comparison

No, especially on large tables with billions of records. They make online schema changes impossible. More details: https://github.com/github/gh-ost/issues/331#issuecomment-266...

Tip #4: Consider slow-running migrations. Some tables can be so large that the traditional migration way is simply not a viable option for them. In such cases, you can consider embedding the data migration code right into your application, or use a special utility like GitHub's online schema migration for MySQL. A slow-running migration can work in production for days or even weeks. It gradually converts the data by small chunks, so you can carefully balance the load on the database while making sure that it doesn't cause slowness or downtime.

GitHub gh-ost

Actually I never tried but I was scared by the small print of GH not using RDS themselves [1] and Ghost relying on lower-level features that might be not easily available in RDS. Also I had the impression you have to setup a normal non-RDS replica attached to your RDS master?

[1] https://github.com/github/gh-ost/blob/master/doc/rds.md