On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 12:22 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> With all these comments and b421223172a2 already applied, are you sure
> that it is a good idea to play with the v18 branch more than
> necessary? We are in a baked beta2 state, and it looks like all these
> could qualify as HEAD-only improvements.
Yeah, b421223172a2 closes the known bug and thus the critical path item for 18.
I am happy to propose this patch as an improvement for master, and I
am not aware of remaining bugs in this area in v18. I just wanted to
publish the patch with analysis ASAP once the existing
read_stream.c/bufmgr.c interaction began to seem egregiously
suboptimal to me and I saw what to do about, having addressed the bug
with a low risk patch as a first priority. That keeps the options
open, even if not very wide given the date: on the off-chance that
others think the status quo isn't good enough and perhaps the
fragility of the existing API is actually riskier than the bigger
change, at least there's a patch on the table to discuss. I have no
plans to take any action without such a consensus.
> Perhaps the open item can be closed then?
Done.
