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.
> 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.
