MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CA+hUKGJ_7NKd46nx1wbyXWriuZSNzsTfm+rhEuvU6nxZi3-KVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d8c3bbe9-690d-4d51-9d80-51f9856ee086@postgresql.org>
 <CA+hUKG+x2BcqWzBC77cN0ewhzMF0kYhC6c4G_T2gJLPbqYQ6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGL-3mBtkA9RTbLFHuSS5cviuv0ko7nBhCg9KM7Q-GSEkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_ZVxzwRRbxedgb_LtkFaGf78XAbTO9uExvadV2DzaE=Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKG+zLmkD9zus=JOjjC+j5p9R1+CSXNZgd5=exZ01ZTaKoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGJx6FNqzsxfSOGH0nJZJq1MBc+t7NBKtAmy6zj4HD86tA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+hUKGJx6FNqzsxfSOGH0nJZJq1MBc+t7NBKtAmy6zj4HD86tA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 11:04:28 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAN55FZ16TEhgYbK=qSEbkO8utz+u232NksCEmJMC1G4iZvnbvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Trying out read streams in pgvector (an extension)
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
 "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN55FZ16TEhgYbK%3DqSEbkO8utz%2Bu232NksCEmJMC1G4iZvnbvA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Thank you for working on this!

On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 at 07:12, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:19=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail=
.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:52=E2=80=AFAM Melanie Plageman
> > <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If we are worried about regressing other extensions using
> > > read_stream_reset(), we could make the read stream reset which
> > > preserves the distance a different function in backbranches.
>
> Here is a draft patch like that, that tries to be as small as
> possible.  Trying out the name read_stream_resume().

I liked the idea of having a different function named
read_stream_resume for this purpose.

0001 looks good to me.

0002:

+        /* End-of-stream. */
+        buf =3D read_stream_next_buffer(stream, NULL);
+        Assert(buf =3D=3D InvalidBuffer);
+        buf =3D read_stream_next_buffer(stream, NULL);
+        Assert(buf =3D=3D InvalidBuffer);

I noticed there are two 'read_stream_next_buffer()' and
'InvalidBuffer' checks. Does having both provide any additional
validation? I tried removing one of them, and the test still passed.

Also, there is one thing I wanted to clarify about the
'read_stream_resume()'. If 'read_stream_next_buffer()' returns an
'InvalidBuffer', then we can use 'read_stream_resume()' alone because
we know that we already consumed all buffers in the stream. For the
rest, we need to use 'read_stream_resume()' together with the
'read_stream_reset()', right?

--=20
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft