Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <> 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
> on?

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                        |               |  (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

Reply via email to