Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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.
Thank you for your comment. It is reasonable that you are concerned with maintainability. Our patchset still lacks of it. I will consider about that when I submit a next update. (It may take a long time, so please be patient...) Regards, Takashi -- Takashi Menjo - NTT Software Innovation Center <menjo.taka...@lab.ntt.co.jp>