Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Date: 2006-06-27 16:13:18
Message-ID: 20060627161318.GE16840@svana.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:45:53AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> No, it says it occurs if this condition is met: "A single *send* call or 
> *WSASend* call fills the whole underlying socket send buffer."
> 
> This will surely be true if the buffer sizes are the same. They 
> recommend making the socket buffer at least 1 byte bigger.

Ok, but even then, are there any benchmarks to show it makes a
difference. The articles suggests there should be but it would be nice
to see how much difference it makes...

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-27 16:16:27
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Previous:From: Rocco AltierDate: 2006-06-27 15:50:59
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-27 16:28:35
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-06-27 15:45:53
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group