Re: Why does backend send buffer size hardcoded at 8KB?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Artemiy Ryabinkov <getlag(at)ya(dot)ru>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why does backend send buffer size hardcoded at 8KB?
Date: 2019-07-27 22:34:50
Message-ID: 762.1564266890@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> It might be better to just use larger send sizes however. I think most
> kernels are going to be better than us knowing how to chop up the send
> size.

Yeah. The existing commentary about that is basically justifying 8K
as being large enough to avoid performance issues; if somebody can
show that that's not true, I wouldn't have any hesitation about
kicking it up.

(Might be worth malloc'ing it rather than having it as part of the
static process image if we do so, but that's a trivial change.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-07-27 22:58:54 Re: Why does backend send buffer size hardcoded at 8KB?
Previous Message farjad.farid 2019-07-27 22:06:30 RE: Hardware for writing/updating 12,000,000 rows per hour