Hi, On 2023-11-03 20:23:30 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 12:35 PM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-11-02 at 22:38 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > > > I suppose the question is: should reading from the WAL buffers an > > > > intentional thing that the caller does explicitly by specific > > > > callers? > > > > Or is it an optimization that should be hidden from the caller? > > > > > > > > I tend toward the former, at least for now. > > > > > > Yes, it's an optimization that must be hidden from the caller. > > > > As I said, I tend toward the opposite: that specific callers should > > read from the buffers explicitly in the cases where it makes sense. > > How about adding a bool flag (read_from_wal_buffers) to > XLogReaderState so that the callers can set it if they want this > facility via XLogReaderAllocate()?
That seems wrong architecturally - why should xlogreader itself know about any of this? What would it mean in frontend code if read_from_wal_buffers were set? IMO this is something that should happen purely within the read function. Greetings, Andres Freund
