Hi, On 2025-02-10 23:52:17 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:31, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > But this will also not work with AIO w/ Buffered IO. Which we hope to use > > much > > more commonly. > > To be clear, here you mean worker based AIO right? Because it would > work with io_uring based AIO, right?
I mostly meant worker based AIO, yes. I haven't checked how accurately these are kept for io_uring. I would hope they are... > > If suddenly I have to reimplement something like this to work with worker > > based IO, it'll certainly take longer to get to AIO. > > I totally understand. But in my opinion it would be completely fine to > decide that these new IO stats are simply not available for worker > based IO. Just like they're not available for Windows either with this > patch. The thing is that you'd often get completely misleading stats. Some of the IO will still be done by the backend itself, so there will be a non-zero value. But it will be a significant undercount, because the asynchronously executed IO won't be tracked (if worker mode is used). Greetings, Andres Freund
