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.takashi@lab.ntt.co.jp>