On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 19:31 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Are you suggesting to error out instead of returning 0?
We'd do neither of those things, because no caller should actually call
it while RecoveryInProgress() or on a different timeline.
> How about
> returning a negative value instead of just 0 or returning true/false
> just like WALRead?
All of these things are functionally equivalent -- the same thing is
happening at the end. This is just a discussion about API style and how
that will interact with hypothetical callers that don't exist today.
And it can also be easily changed later, so we aren't stuck with
whatever decision happens here.
>
> Imagine, implementing an extension (may be for fun or learning or
> educational or production purposes) to read unflushed WAL directly
> from WAL buffers using XLogReadFromBuffers as page_read callback with
> xlogreader facility.
That makes sense, I didn't realize you intended to use this fron an
extension. I'm fine considering that as a separate patch that could
potentially be committed soon after this one.
I'd like some more details, but can I please just commit the basic
functionality now-ish?
> Tried to keep wal_writer quiet with wal_writer_delay=10000ms and
> wal_writer_flush_after = 1GB to not to flush WAL in the background.
> Also, disabled autovacuum, and set checkpoint_timeout to a higher
> value. All of this is done to generate minimal WAL so that WAL
> buffers
> don't get overwritten. Do you see any problems with it?
Maybe check it against pg_current_wal_lsn(), and see if the Write
pointer moved ahead? Perhaps even have a (limited) loop that tries
again to catch it at the right time?
> Can the WAL summarizer ever read the WAL on current TLI? I'm not so
> sure about it, I haven't explored it in detail.
Let's just not call XLogReadFromBuffers from there.
Regards,
Jeff Davis