| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatically sizing the IO worker pool |
| Date: | 2025-05-26 22:54:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+wbaZZ9Nwc_bTopm4f-7vDmCwLk80uKDHj9mq+Up0E+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
BTW I would like to push 0001 and 0002 to master/18. They are are not
behaviour changes, they just fix up a bunch of inconsistent (0001) and
misleading (0002) variable naming and comments to reflect reality (in
AIO v1 the postmaster used to assign those I/O worker numbers, now the
postmaster has its own array of slots to track them that is *not*
aligned with the ID numbers/slots in shared memory ie those numbers
you see in the ps status, so that's bound to confuse people
maintaining this code). I just happened to notice that when working
on this dynamic worker pool stuff. If there are no objections I will
go ahead and do that soon.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-05-26 23:30:56 | Re: Add AioUringCompletion in wait_event_names.txt and a safeguard in generate-wait_event_types.pl |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-05-26 22:53:24 | Avoiding memory leak when compilation of a function fails |