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. 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/
