Hi, On 2025-02-11 09:59:43 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 00:53, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > 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). > > Yeah, makes sense. Like I said, I would be completely fine with not > showing these numbers at all/setting them to 0 for setups where we > cannot easily get useful numbers (and this bgworker AIO would be one > of those setups).
Shrug. It means that it'll not work in what I hope will be the default mechanism before long. I just can't get excited for that. In all likelihood it'll result in bug reports that I'll then be on the hook to fix. > > Independent to of this, it's probably not good that we're tracking shared > > buffer hits after io combining, if I interpret this correctly... That looks > > to > > be an issue in master, not just the AIO branch. > > You mean that e.g. a combined IO for 20 blocks still sounds only as 1 > "shared read"? Yeah, that sounds like a bug. Yep. Greetings, Andres Freund
