feat: HTTP SenderPool with asyncio support

[amunra]

Overview

A new API to make it easier to work with the sender asynchronously with true parallelism.

from questdb.ingress.pool import SenderPool with SenderPool('http::addr=localhost:9000;') as pool: # Buffers can be safely constructed independently, # also on separate threads. buf1 = pool.transaction('tbl1') buf1.row(...) buf2 = pool.transaction('tbl2') buf2.dataframe(...) # parallelism fut1 = buf1.commit() fut2 = buf2.commit() await fut1 await fut2

Details

• The buffer can only accumulate rows for a given table.
• Each flush represents an atomic database transaction.
• Flush operations can happen in parallel (network operations release the GIL).
• The ownership of the buffer is "moved" to the pool.
• By introducing parallelism alleviates the performance penalties of using ILP/HTTP: Network roundtrip times.

API downsides

• This is a new "parallel" API for more advanced use cases. Creates an API split:
  • Server-style applications written in Python would use this new API.
  • Simpler "jupyter notebook" style stuff would continue using the existing API.
  • Both APIs would continue being supported (since this new one is just a wrapper around the other anyway).
• Shoe-horning these features into the regular API would be a struggle.
• This API drops auto-flushing completely, since auto-flushing
  creates silent network-blocking operations in the API.

Thread safety and Parallelism

• Once a pool object is created, it can be shared between threads.
• The pool.next_buffer() and pool.flush() methods are thread safe.
• This allows for N:M concurrency
  • N buffer writer threads
  • M threads responsible for concurrently writing to the database (inside the pool).

Tasks

• Review the API. Is this even a good idea?
• Split out SenderPool into new questdb.ingress.pool module.
• Improve test coverage, including TransactionalBuffer.dataframe(..).
• Triple-check thread safety of pool.next_buffer() and pool.flush implementations.
• Skip the indirection and call asyncio.wrap_future in def flush() directly (since that's how it's implemented anyway): https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/8ad88984200b2ccddc0a08229dd2f4c14d1a71fc/Lib/asyncio/base_events.py#L896 - this allows implementing .flush() in terms of .flush_to_future() and cut code duplication.

Closes #64