| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-27 16:16:27 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Rocco Altier | 2006-06-27 15:50:59 | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-27 16:28:35 | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-06-27 15:45:53 | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |