Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Buffered atomic writes

[Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>]

Hi Christian / LSF committee,

> The preliminary schedule is accessible here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mGEdDrWskp7Ua91jGXzquQGinorcD58DAVXhOiRp2Gg/edit?gid=1852749899#gid=1852749899
> It just hasn't been liked on the website yet.

Thanks for sharing the preliminary schedule. We had a discuss about this
among us Me, Ojaswin, Pankaj and Andres too is on the same page.

We were thinking if it is possible to extend the Buffered Atomic Write
session into two "continuous" halves of 30mins each (total of 60mins)?
Looks like in the past couple of months, there has been some good
discussion & progress on this topic and we feel a 30min slot might not
be enough to cover everything, since we want to give more time for
QnA/Discussions.

This is how we were thinking it might go:

Buffered atomic write: Usecase & Discussion with Postgres
I think in this slot Pankaj and Andres would like to cover:
1. Buffered atomic write usecases
2. How Postgres would like to use it and why is it important for them, ...
3. Q&A/Discussion

@Pankaj / Andres - please add and/or correct if I missed anything in above.

Buffered atomic write: The writethrough approach 
Ojaswin and I have been working on this and since a few approaches were
tried, before we landed on the writethrough model, we think this may
need a 30-minute slot of its own:

So, I think Ojaswin can cover the following in this slot:

1. Briefly cover the previous 2 approaches on buffered atomic writes and
   what were the problems in those approaches.
2. Design of writethrough and its use beyond just support of buffered atomic
   writes.
3. Performance concern with the current approach (not sure if we will be
   able to get a thorough benchmarking numbers, but will try to share
   some initial data at least)
4. Q&A/Discussion 


Do you think this is possible? It will be best to keep both back to back,
so that buffered writethrough can be discussed in continuation.

-ritesh