On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 03:01:31PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 at 14:27, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:11:13PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > > v4 is attached.
> >
> > Removal of the PinBufferForBlock() comment about the "persistence =
> > RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT" fallback started to feel like a loss. I looked for
> > a way to re-add a comment about the fallback.
> > https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c.gcov.html
> > shows no test coverage of that fallback, and I think the fallback is
> > unreachable. Hence, I've removed the fallback in a separate commit. I've
> > pushed that and your three patches. Thanks.
>
> Thanks for the separate commit and push!
>
> With the separate commit (e00c45f685), does it make sense to rename
> the smgr_persistence parameter of the ReadBuffer_common() to
> persistence? Because, ExtendBufferedRelTo() calls ReadBuffer_common()
> with rel's persistence now, not with smgr's persistence.
BMR_REL() doesn't set relpersistence, so bmr.relpersistence is associated with
bmr.smgr and is unset if bmr.rel is set. That is to say, bmr.relpersistence
is an smgr_persistence. It could make sense to change ReadBuffer_common() to
take a BufferManagerRelation instead of the three distinct arguments.
On a different naming topic, my review missed that field name
copy_storage_using_buffer_read_stream_private.last_block doesn't fit how the
field is used. Code uses it like an nblocks. So let's either rename the
field or change the code to use it as a last_block (e.g. initialize it to
nblocks-1, not nblocks).
