On 2025-03-25 10:27, torikoshia wrote:
> On 2025-03-22 20:23, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 14:15, torikoshia <torikoshia@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.
I took this approach and when io_method=worker, no additional output is
shown in the attached patch.
--
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
Seconded from NTT DATA GROUP CORPORATION to SRA OSS K.K.
