## Problem
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/9524 split the decoding and
interpretation step from ingestion.
The output of the first phase is a `wal_decoder::models::InterpretedWalRecord`.
Before this patch set that struct contained a list of `Value` instances.
We wish to lift the decoding and interpretation step to the safekeeper,
but it would be nice if the safekeeper gave us a batch containing the raw data instead of actual values.
## Summary of changes
Main goal here is to make `InterpretedWalRecord` hold a raw buffer which
contains pre-serialized Values.
For this we do:
1. Add a `SerializedValueBatch` type. This is `inmemory_layer::SerializedBatch` with some
extra functionality for extension, observing values for shard 0 and tests.
2. Replace `inmemory_layer::SerializedBatch` with `SerializedValueBatch`
3. Make `DatadirModification` maintain a `SerializedValueBatch`.
### `DatadirModification` changes
`DatadirModification` now maintains a `SerializedValueBatch` and extends
it as new WAL records come in (to avoid flushing to disk on every
record).
In turn, this cascaded into a number of modifications to
`DatadirModification`:
1. Replace `pending_data_pages` and `pending_zero_data_pages` with `pending_data_batch`.
2. Removal of `pending_zero_data_pages` and its cousin `on_wal_record_end`
3. Rename `pending_bytes` to `pending_metadata_bytes` since this is what it tracks now.
4. Adapting of various utility methods like `len`, `approx_pending_bytes` and `has_dirty_data_pages`.
Removal of `pending_zero_data_pages` and the optimisation associated
with it ((1) and (2)) deserves more detail.
Previously all zero data pages went through `pending_zero_data_pages`.
We wrote zero data pages when filling gaps caused by relation extension
(case A) and when handling special wal records (case B). If it happened
that the same WAL record contained a non zero write for an entry in
`pending_zero_data_pages` we skipped the zero write.
Case A: We handle this differently now. When ingesting the
`SerialiezdValueBatch` associated with one PG WAL record, we identify the gaps and fill the
them in one go. Essentially, we move from a per key process (gaps were filled after each
new key), and replace it with a per record process. Hence, the optimisation is not
required anymore.
Case B: When the handling of a special record needs to zero out a key,
it just adds that to the current batch. I inspected the code, and I
don't think the optimisation kicked in here.
