Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:13 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> The / 2 is to avoid causing unnecessarily frequent WAL flushes, right? If so,
> should we apply that only if the ring the strategy doesn't use the
> StrategyRejectBuffer() logic?

Hmm, I don't really know, but that sounds plausible.  What do you
think about the attached?

> I think for VACUUM we should probably go a bit further. There's no comparable
> L1/L2 issue, because the per-buffer processing + WAL insertion is a lot more
> expensive, compared to a seqscan. I'd go or at lest 4x-8x.

Alright what about this?