| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Rady, Doug" <radydoug(at)amazon(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts |
| Date: | 2018-04-06 21:54:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20180406215414.sgcrwrtk7id2t5a7@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-04-06 17:49:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I'm still not particularly happy with this.
>
> I'm a bit confused as to what the point is. It seems unlikely that one
> pgbench process can effectively drive enough backends for select's
> limitations to really be an issue.
It's not that crazy to use more than 1024 connections (common FD_SETSIZE
valu), especially over a higher latency connection.
As I wrote, I think using a poll API that doesn't require looping over
all sockets, even if they didn't get an event, would be a better plan.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2018-04-06 22:04:44 | Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-06 21:54:01 | Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks |