On 18/05/10 17:17, Simon Riggs wrote:
> There's no reason that the buffer size we use for XLogRead() should be
> the same as the send buffer, if you're worried about that. My point is
> that pq_putmessage contains internal flushes so at the libpq level you
> gain nothing by big batches. The read() will be buffered anyway with
> readahead so not sure what the issue is. We'll have to do this for sync
> rep anyway, so what's the big deal? Just do it now, once. Do we really
> want 9.1 code to differ here?
Do what? What exactly is it that you want instead, then?
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com