From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Flushing large data immediately in pqcomm |
Date: | 2024-02-01 20:02:57 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYs7QssFjJDUFtPkJk9U3Q_98NxWvq4sXeREZVdAyh2LQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:52 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:24 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > While not perfect - e.g. because networks might use jumbo packets / large MTUs
> > and we don't know how many outstanding bytes there are locally, I think a
> > decent heuristic could be to always try to send at least one packet worth of
> > data at once (something like ~1400 bytes), even if that requires copying some
> > of the input data. It might not be sent on its own, but it should make it
> > reasonably unlikely to end up with tiny tiny packets.
>
> I think that COULD be a decent heuristic but I think it should be
> TESTED, including against the ~3 or so other heuristics proposed on
> this thread, before we make a decision.
>
> I literally mentioned the Ethernet frame size as one of the things
> that we should test whether it's relevant in the exact email to which
> you're replying, and you replied by proposing that as a heuristic, but
> also criticizing me for wanting more research before we settle on
> something. Are we just supposed to assume that your heuristic is
> better than the others proposed here without testing anything, or,
> like, what? I don't think this needs to be a completely exhaustive or
> exhausting process, but I think trying a few different things out and
> seeing what happens is smart.
There was probably a better way to phrase this email ... the sentiment
is sincere, but there was almost certainly a way of writing it that
didn't sound like I'm super-annoyed.
Apologies for that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-02-01 20:36:09 | Re: 003_extrafiles.pl test fails on Windows with the newer Perl versions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-02-01 20:00:42 | Re: Call pqPipelineFlush from PQsendFlushRequest |