On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:49:17AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > We also discussed the topic at > https://postgr.es/m/20240925020022.c5.nmisch%40google.com > > ... neither BM_SETTING_HINTS nor keeping bounce buffers looks like a bad > > decision. From what I've heard so far of the performance effects, if it > > were > > me, I would keep the bounce buffers. I'd pursue BM_SETTING_HINTS and bounce > > buffer removal as a distinct project after the main AIO capability. Bounce > > buffers have an implementation. They aren't harming other design decisions. > > The AIO project is big, so I'd want to err on the side of not designating > > other projects as its prerequisites. > > Given the issues that modifying pages while in flight causes, not just with PG > level checksums, but also filesystem level checksum, I don't feel like it's a > particularly promising approach. > > However, I think this doesn't have to mean that the BM_SETTING_HINTS stuff has > to be completed before we can move forward with AIO. If I split out the write > portion from the read portion a bit further, the main AIO changes and the > shared-buffer read user can be merged before there's a dependency on the hint > bit stuff being done. > > Does that seem reasonable?
Yes.
