Hi,
On 2024-02-12 17:33:24 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 15:36 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't really seem like a necessary, or even particularly useful,
> > part. You couldn't just call WALRead() for that, since the caller
> > would need
> > to know the range up to which WAL is valid but not yet flushed as
> > well. Thus
> > the caller would need to first use WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish() or
> > something
> > like it anyway - and then there's no point in doing the WALRead()
> > anymore.
>
> I follow until the last part. Did you mean "and then there's no point
> in doing the WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish() in WALReadFromBuffers()
> anymore"?
Yes, not sure what happened in my brain there.
> For now, should I assert that the requested WAL data is before the
> Flush pointer or assert that it's before the Write pointer?
Yes, I think that'd be good.
> > Note that for replicating unflushed data, we *still* might need to
> > fall back
> > to reading WAL data from disk. In which case not asserting in
> > WALRead() would
> > just make it hard to find bugs, because not using
> > WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish()
> > would appear to work as long as data is in wal buffers, but as soon
> > as we'd
> > fall back to on-disk (but unflushed) data, we'd send bogus WAL.
>
> That makes me wonder whether my previous idea[1] might matter: when
> some buffers have been evicted, should WALReadFromBuffers() keep going
> through the loop and return the end portion of the requested data
> rather than the beginning?
I still doubt that that will help very often, but it'll take some
experimentation to figure it out, I guess.
> We can sort that out when we get closer to replicating unflushed WAL.
+1
Greetings,
Andres Freund