On 2025-05-08 22:51, torikoshia wrote:
> On 2025-04-11 22:18, torikoshia wrote:
>> 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.
>
Rebased the patch again.
--
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
Seconded from NTT DATA Japan Corporation to SRA OSS K.K.
