Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE to max_wal_send
От
Greg Stark
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE to max_wal_send
Дата
Msg-id
CAM-w4HPSnDHib3PdU_K04gm3f3RoPX7VfbgyX4zhdwTxL0ByAw@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
[HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE to max_wal_send Jonathon Nelson <jdnelson@dyn.com>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZEto max_wal_send Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZEto max_wal_send Jonathon Nelson <jdnelson@dyn.com>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZEto max_wal_send Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZEto max_wal_send Jonathon Nelson <jdnelson@dyn.com>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE to max_wal_send Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE to max_wal_send Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE to max_wal_send Jonathon Nelson <jdnelson@dyn.com>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZEto max_wal_send Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZEto max_wal_send Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZEto max_wal_send Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>
[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE tomax_wal_send David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE to max_wal_send Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>
[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE tomax_wal_send David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] guc-ify the formerly hard-coded MAX_SEND_SIZE tomax_wal_send David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
On 5 January 2017 at 19:01, Andres Freund wrote: > That's a bit odd - shouldn't the OS network stack take care of this in > both cases? I mean either is too big for TCP packets (including jumbo > frames). What type of OS and network is involved here? 2x may be plausible. The first 128k goes out, then the rest queues up until the first ack comes back. Then the next 128kB goes out again without waiting... I think this is what Nagle is supposed to actually address but either it may be off by default these days or our usage pattern may be defeating it in some way. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Greg Stark
Дата: