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: 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: 2006-06-27 17:01:10
Message-ID: 25504.1151427670@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>> It also says that the condition only occurs if the program uses
>> non-blocking sockets ... which the backend does not.  So this page
>> offers no support for the proposed patch.

> WSAEventSelect() sets a socket to nonblocking mode.

Yeah, but that socket is only used for inter-backend signaling with
small (1 byte, I think) messages.  The socket used for communication
with the frontend is not in nonblocking mode, unless I'm totally
confused.

Have you actually measured any performance benefit from this patch,
and if so what was the test case?  I'm not opposed to the patch if it
does something useful, but the info currently available does not suggest
that it will help.

What I would think might help is a patch on the libpq side (because it
*does* use a nonblocking socket) to avoid sending more than 8K per
WSASend call.  The effect would just be to break a long send into a
series of shorter sends, which wouldn't really do anything useful on a
well-designed TCP stack, but then this is Windows we're talking about...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: J. Andrew RogersDate: 2006-06-27 17:13:03
Subject: Re: Table clustering idea
Previous:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2006-06-27 16:58:32
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Pljava-dev] char with trailing space, PreparedStatement.setObject

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Hiroshi SaitoDate: 2006-06-27 17:38:10
Subject: Client build of MSVC6+ patch
Previous:From: Yoshiyuki AsabaDate: 2006-06-27 16:43:37
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

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