On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:52 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:24 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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