MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:27:31 +0900
From: torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
 rjuju123@gmail.com, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: RFC: Allow EXPLAIN to Output Page Fault Information
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGECzQSV7eS86=mBMr8JcN5ghORckEHUmyqAFJLr7Y+P7NVXBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D6MJOHS7HZ80.3B17NDGUV6T47@jeltef.nl>
 <Z3LII9YEgp3kAZG-@momjian.us> <3861403.1735576764@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <D6PENGW1PL79.266GQNPSMRIGA@jeltef.nl>
 <1f22794321b745549d54359d343e37b8@oss.nttdata.com>
 <D6V9GJ2LOLC5.1ZF3BWKKEBZWC@jeltef.nl>
 <CAM6-o=BE=oewSsdNKrbbNjR2muzQR49STXsuta+Wpq6CSyxTag@mail.gmail.com>
 <2c9d6eaf26df17bec13bb03bf1e9bcbb@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAGECzQRvcLx44N3zd_DGCjY02XX4AqXX8mq4BiS8C9Froy+Jhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGECzQQdc-k=M2fMCKa98kVZntc=6d3rpd6edt8Qs45cayfUeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <myw76agwrlmisvamwbfl6ibxgwh5glzitydiwnfmtb5aui232i@274yxxtnbnsp>
 <2035079.1739124342@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAGECzQTm6oEEY4yO_FO0ZBtUuJX+pYiXhw2GPPRMzq_5DP5_fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <30ce8c5be7d1f67d53276540c29fa1c7@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAGECzQT7661fFrdvwLq2tYjL3ovnbomWRqLmwO1vOrHvd=LwKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7e182802a184ff5c9b54e575f1e3d8a2@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAGECzQSV7eS86=mBMr8JcN5ghORckEHUmyqAFJLr7Y+P7NVXBg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <b83d3c05ccdf2613fa09c4adfd718b19@oss.nttdata.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b83d3c05ccdf2613fa09c4adfd718b19%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.