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

Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

From: Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Date: 2006-06-28 15:59:24
Message-ID: 20060629.005924.74752342.y-asaba@sraoss.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? 
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:54:21 -0400

> Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > I think libpq interface does not use non-blocking socket.
> 
> Not unless the Windows port has also disabled pg_set_noblock ...

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I tried to occur this issue on msys.

 % cat test.sh
 export PGHOST=xxx
 export PGPORT=5432
 export PGDATABASE=test
 
 dropdb $PGDATABASE
 createdb
 psql -c 'CREATE TABLE t1 (a int, b text)'
 i=0
 while [ $i -lt 50 ]; do
   psql -c "insert into t1 values ($i, repeat('x', 10000))"
   i=`expr $i + 1`
 done
 pg_dump -a > dump
 time psql -f dump

 % sh test.sh

But, I did not occur this issue... Does anyone occur this issue?
--
Yoshiyuki Asaba
y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-28 16:09:51
Subject: Instability in TRUNCATE regression test
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-28 15:40:52
Subject: Re: optimizing constant quals within outer joins

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-06-28 23:44:09
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-28 13:54:21
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

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