| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takashi Menjo <menjo(dot)takashi(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | 'Heikki Linnakangas' <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 'Michael Paquier' <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 'Dmitry Dolgov' <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, ishizaki(dot)teruaki(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp, ichiyanagi(dot)yoshimi(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory |
| Date: | 2019-02-07 22:33:22 |
| Message-ID: | e34018a8-469f-d411-992e-aa09480cb76b@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30/01/2019 07:16, Takashi Menjo wrote:
> Sorry but I found that the patchset v2 had a bug in managing WAL segment
> file offset. I fixed it and updated a patchset as v3 (attached).
I'm concerned with how this would affect the future maintenance of this
code. You are introducing a whole separate code path for PMDK beside
the normal file path (and it doesn't seem very well separated either).
Now everyone who wants to do some surgery in the WAL code needs to take
that into account. And everyone who wants to do performance work in the
WAL code needs to check that the PMDK path doesn't regress. AFAICT,
this hardware isn't very popular at the moment, so it would be very hard
to peer review any work in this area.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robbie Harwood | 2019-02-07 23:55:24 | Re: Commit Fest 2019-01 is now closed |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-07 22:22:25 | Re: Commit Fest 2019-01 is now closed |