Hi,
On 2024-03-16 12:27:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I canvassed Andres off-list since smgrzeroextend() is his invention,
> and he wondered if it was a good idea to blur the distinction between
> the different zero-extension strategies like that. Good question. My
> take is that it's fine:
>
> mdzeroextend() already uses fallocate() only for nblocks > 8, but
> otherwise writes out zeroes, because that was seen to interact better
> with file system heuristics on common systems. That preserves current
> behaviour for callers of plain-old sgmrextend(), which becomes a
> wrapper for smgrwrite(..., 1, _ZERO | _EXTEND). If some hypothetical
> future caller wants to be able to call smgrwritev(..., NULL, 9 blocks,
> _ZERO | _EXTEND) directly without triggering the fallocate() strategy
> for some well researched reason, we could add a new flag to say so, ie
> adjust that gating.
>
> In other words, we have already blurred the semantics. To me, it
> seems nicer to have a single high level interface for the same logical
> operation, and flags to select strategies more explicitly if that is
> eventually necessary.
I don't think zeroextend on the one hand and and on the other hand a normal
write or extend are really the same operation. In the former case the content
is hard-coded in the latter it's caller provided. Sure, we can deal with that
by special-casing NULL content - but at that point, what's the benefit of
combinding the two operations? I'm not dead-set against this, just not really
convinced that it's a good idea to combine the operations.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
