| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Asynchronous and "direct" IO support for PostgreSQL. |
| Date: | 2022-01-12 07:18:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_Zm6x4LSVRV44ojiwf8mc2=a0OPO5Uko4ZLxLAoUeqv-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> I've attached the code for posterity, but the series is large enough that I
> don't think it makes sense to do that all that often...
Agreed.
> The code is at
> https://github.com/anarazel/postgres/tree/aio
Just FYI the cfbot says that this version of the patchset doesn't
apply anymore, and it seems that your branch was only rebased to
43c1c4f (Sept. 21th) which doesn't rebase cleanly:
error: could not apply 8a20594f2f... lwlock, xlog: Report caller wait
event for LWLockWaitForVar.
Since it's still a WIP and a huge patchset I'm not sure if I should
switch the cf entry to Waiting on Author or not as it's probably going
to rot quite fast anyway. Just to be safe I'll go ahead and change
the status. If that's unhelpful just let me know and I'll switch it
back to needs review, as people motivated enough to review the patch
can still work with 43c1c4f as a starting point.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-01-12 07:39:03 | Re: Time to drop plpython2? |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2022-01-12 07:18:09 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |