On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 14:15, torikoshia <torikos...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > BTW based on your discussion, I thought this patch could not be merged > anytime soon. Does that align with your understanding?
Yeah, that aligns with my understanding. I don't think it's realistic to get this merged before the code freeze, but I think both of the below issues could be resolved. > - With bgworker-based AIO, this patch could mislead users into > underestimating the actual storage I/O load, which is undesirable. To resolve this, I think the patch would need to change to not report anything if bgworker-based AIO is used. So I moved this patch to the next commitfest, and marked it as "waiting for author" there. > - With io_uring-based AIO, this patch could provide meaningful values, > but it may take some time before io_uring sees widespread adoption. I submitted this patch to help make io_uring-based AIO more of a reality: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5570/
