Plan for the approved spec. Code-free per the repo convention
(docs/plan/discarded.md:54); the executor writes the code.
- T1 a failed barrier is detected and fatal — one entry point that names
the operation, errno, WAL path and batch size, then exits. The abort
path itself stays unexercised and the task says so rather than buying
coverage with a fault-injection switch
- T2 the barrier moves to the drain point and replies are held; the
request path stops committing per append. Riskiest task, and its risk
is one place: the crash legs. Plan says STOP if they fail, do not
adjust the test
- T3 the inline path takes the same fatal rule but keeps its own barrier,
with a comment explaining the asymmetry so the next reader does not
"fix" it. Looks like a no-op; without it the two paths disagree, which
is the unevenness the spec exists to remove
- T4 prove batches actually form BEFORE measuring the payoff — otherwise
a win gets attributed to the wrong cause. Also records peak staged
bytes, settling the no-cap decision with a number
- T5 measure, gate, write it down. If the payoff is absent, say so and
stop: part B must not start on an unproven premise
- T6 closeout, including the error catalogue — WO_T_IO leaving the write
path is language-visible and must be written down
Spec corrected while planning: it pointed at durable.s1.seed as the
payoff. Wrong, structurally — worker shards hold no WAL, so a queue only
exists when other shards write, and a serial writer has nothing to batch
with. The real target is durable.sN.mixwrite: 480 ops/s at p99 5888us
against s1's 1023 at p99 664, so adding shards currently makes durable
writing WORSE. That inversion is a better argument for the iteration than
the one the story recorded.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
shoney.arickathil
026919762b