On 2025-03-22 20:23, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
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.
Agreed.
I feel the new GUC io_method can be used to determine whether
bgworker-based AIO is being used.
So I moved this patch to the
next commitfest, and marked it as "waiting for author" there.
Thanks for moving it.
- 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/
Thanks for working on that, too.
--
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
Seconded from NTT DATA GROUP CORPORATION to SRA OSS K.K.
