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

Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Date: 2006-06-27 15:30:56
Message-ID: 20080.1151422256@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> send() may take as long as 200ms. So, I think we should increase
> SO_SNDBUF to more than 8192. I attache the patch.

Why would that help?  We won't be sending more than 8K at a time.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-06-27 15:31:20
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Previous:From: Yoshiyuki AsabaDate: 2006-06-27 15:23:13
Subject: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-06-27 15:31:20
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Previous:From: Yoshiyuki AsabaDate: 2006-06-27 15:23:13
Subject: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

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