On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 10:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is there a reason for that to be coded in such an obscure and fragile
> fashion, rather than having the test be say "if (lt->buffer ==
> NULL)"?
I did that to match the original behavior, which is to only allocate
the read buffer if the tape is
Jeff Davis writes:
> Logical Tape Set: lazily allocate read buffer.
Coverity is not very pleased with this patch: it's spewing warnings like
1112 if (lt->buffer == NULL)
1113 ltsInitReadBuffer(lts, lt);
1114
1115 if (blocknum != lt->curBlockNumber)
1116 {
Logical Tape Set: lazily allocate read buffer.
The write buffer was already lazily-allocated, so this is more
symmetric. It also means that a freshly-rewound tape (whether for
reading or writing) is not consuming memory for the buffer.
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/97c46a59c27f3c38e486ca170fcb
