On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:57 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can also do a few other things, but before working on them, I'd like
> to hear from others:
> 1. A separate wait event (WAIT_EVENT_WAL_READ_FROM_BUFFERS) for
> reading from WAL buffers - right now, WAIT_EVENT_WAL_READ is being
> used both for reading from WAL buffers and WAL files. Given the fact
> that we won't wait for a lock or do a time-taking task while reading
> from buffers, it seems unnecessary.
Yes, we do not need this separate wait event and we also don't need
WAIT_EVENT_WAL_READ wait event while reading from the buffer. Because
we are not performing any IO so no specific wait event is needed and
for reading from the WAL buffer we are acquiring WALBufMappingLock so
that lwlock event will be tracked under that lock.
> 2. A separate TAP test for verifying that the WAL is actually read
> from WAL buffers - right now, existing tests for recovery,
> subscription, pg_walinspect already cover the code, see [1]. However,
> if needed, I can add a separate TAP test.
Can we write a test that can actually validate that we have read from
a WAL Buffer? If so then it would be good to have such a test to avoid
any future breakage in that logic. But if it is just for hitting the
code but no guarantee that whether we can validate as part of the test
whether it has hit the WAL buffer or not then I think the existing
cases are sufficient.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
