Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory

Lists: pgsql-hackers
From: "Takashi Menjo" <menjo(dot)takashi(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <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: 2019-02-12 07:06:53
Message-ID: [email protected]
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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(dot)takashi(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>

From: Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp
Subject: Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory
Date: 2020-08-04 06:11:09
Message-ID: CAOwnP3ONd9uXPXKoc5AAfnpCnCyOna1ru6sU=eY_4WfMjaKG9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear hackers,

I rebased my old patchset. It would be good to compare this v4 patchset to
non-volatile WAL buffer's one [1].

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected]_1

Regards,
Takashi

--
Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com>

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Add-configure-option-for-PMDK.patch application/octet-stream 5.5 KB
v4-0003-Walreceiver-WAL-IO-using-PMDK.patch application/octet-stream 5.0 KB
v4-0002-Read-write-WAL-files-using-PMDK.patch application/octet-stream 43.5 KB