From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Receive buffer size for the statistics socket
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:14:55 -0400
Message-ID: <12781.1496103295@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <27403.1494892641@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <22173.1494788088@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<27403.1494892641@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
I wrote:
>> I propose that it'd be a good idea to try to set the stats socket's
>> receive buffer size to be a minimum of, say, 100K on all platforms.
>> Code for this would be analogous to what we already have in pqcomm.c
>> (circa line 760) for forcing up the send buffer size, but SO_RCVBUF
>> not SO_SNDBUF.
> I propose committing this (less the debug logging part) to HEAD
> once the beta is out, and then back-patching if it doesn't break
> anything and seems to improve matters on frogmouth.
That went in in 8b0b6303e. frogmouth had failed in 5 of the 23 HEAD runs
it made between 4e37b3e15 and 8b0b6303e. Since then, it has shown zero
failures in 50 runs. I don't know what confidence a statistician would
assign to the proposition that 8b0b6303e improved things, but this is good
enough for me. I'm going to go back-patch it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Receive buffer size for the statistics socket
In-Reply-To: <12781.1496103295@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox