Skip to content

Drop GC mark for non-existent objects#3820

Merged
roman-khimov merged 3 commits intomasterfrom
drop-gc-mark
Feb 17, 2026
Merged

Drop GC mark for non-existent objects#3820
roman-khimov merged 3 commits intomasterfrom
drop-gc-mark

Conversation

@roman-khimov
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Marks can be added for objects that we don't have by GC handlers, in that
case having a mark for some time has some benefits (prevents PUTs), however
it should eventually be deleted. Non-physical check prevented that from
happening leading to seemingly stuck objects in GC (iterating over the same
set over and over again).

Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 16, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 25.53%. Comparing base (7835790) to head (ff30fb8).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
pkg/local_object_storage/internal/log/log.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
pkg/local_object_storage/metabase/metadata.go 87.50% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3820      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   25.52%   25.53%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         669      669              
  Lines       42938    42940       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        10959    10966       +7     
+ Misses      30974    30970       -4     
+ Partials     1005     1004       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Being more specific is always better, allows to avoid some reflection code in
zap itself. Also reveals that the only user of stringified AddressField() was
write cache and passing oid.Address is easier for it as well.

Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
@roman-khimov roman-khimov merged commit 93ee8e9 into master Feb 17, 2026
20 of 22 checks passed
@roman-khimov roman-khimov deleted the drop-gc-mark branch February 17, 2026 13:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants