When data arrives before a heartbeat has been received, it is impossible
to know whether this is a new "live" sample or a retransmit, and for
this reason the requesting of historical data is delayed until a
heartbeat arrives that informs the readers of the range of sequence
numbers to request as historical data.
However, by this time, and without this new condition in place, the
reader may have already received some data directly, and may
consequently request some data twice. That's not right.
Requiring a heartbeat to have been received before delivering the data
avoids this problem, but potentially delays receiving data after a new
writer/reader pair has been matched. The delay caused by a full
handshake at that point seems less bad that the odd case of stuttering
where that isn't expected. There are almost certainly some tricks
possible to avoid that delay in the common cases, but there are more
important things to do ...
Best-effort readers on a reliable proxy writer are a bit special: if
there are only best-effort readers, there is no guarantee that a
heartbeat will be received, and so the condition does not apply. This
commit attempts to deal with that by only requiring a heartbeat if some
reliable readers exist, but that doesn't allow a smooth transition from
"only best-effort readers" to "some reliable readers".
One could moreover argue that this condition should not be imposed on
volatile readers (at worst you get a little bit of data from before the
match), but equally well that it should (there's no guarantee that no
sample would be skipped in the case of a keep-all writer, if the first
sample happened to be a retransmit).
Signed-off-by: Erik Boasson <eb@ilities.com>
d4f8456479