On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:06 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Small bug fix: the condition in the final test at the end of
> read_stream_look_ahead() wasn't quite right. In general when looking
> ahead, we don't need to start a read just because the pending read
> would bring us up to stream->distance if submitted now (we'd prefer to
> build it all the way up to size io_combine_limit if we can), but if
> that condition is met AND we have nothing pinned yet, then there is no
> chance for the read to grow bigger by a pinned buffer being consumed.
> Fixed, comment updated.
Oops, I sent the wrong/unfixed version. This version has the fix
described above.