| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2024-01-31 17:49:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQREWQh0FrGbbTa+DqiZT80QFoaHTrAHc-auotJRjN9POg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:23, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That's kind of an odd artifact, but maybe it's fine in
> practice.
I agree it's an odd artifact, but it's not a regression over the
status quo. Achieving that was the intent of my suggestion: A change
that improves some cases, but regresses nowhere.
> I say again that it's good to test out a bunch of scenarios
> and see what shakes out.
Testing a bunch of scenarios to find a good one sounds like a good
idea, which can probably give us a more optimal heuristic. But it also
sounds like a lot of work, and probably results in a lot of
discussion. That extra effort might mean that we're not going to
commit any change for PG17 (or even at all). If so, then I'd rather
have a modest improvement from my refinement of Melih's proposal, than
none at all.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2024-01-31 18:07:12 | Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-31 17:47:39 | Re: Reducing output size of nodeToString |