Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <email@example.com> writes:
> > I found if I put a pg_usleep(100) in the buffer process the backend
> > speed was good, but packets were lost. What I found worked well was to
> > do multiple recv() calls in a loop. The previous code did a select(),
> > then perhaps a recv() and pipe write() based on the results of the
> > select(). This caused many small packets to be written to the pipe and
> > the pipe write overhead seems fairly large. The best fix I found was to
> > loop over the recv() call at most 25 times, collecting a group of
> > packets that can then be sent to the collector in one pipe write. The
> > recv() socket is non-blocking, so a zero return indicates there are no
> > more packets available. Patch attached.
> This seems incredibly OS-specific. How many platforms did you test it
Only mine. I am posting the patch so others can test it, of course.
> A more serious objection is that it will cause the stats machinery to
> work very poorly if there isn't a steady stream of incoming messages.
> You can't just sit on 24 messages until the 25th one arrives next week.
You wouldn't. It exits out of the loop on a not found, checks the pipe
write descriptor, and writes on it.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
firstname.lastname@example.org | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster