Hey folks, Any news, comments, etc. about this thread?
Best regards Majid Garoosi On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 at 01:10, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 04:32:20PM +0330, Majid Garoosi wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 at 22:33, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> The way we read the WAL data is perfectly prefetchable by the the OS, > so I > >> wouldn't really expect gains here. Have you actually been able to see a > >> performance benefit by increasing MAX_SEND_SIZE? > > > > Yes, I have seen a huge performance jump. Take a look at here > > < > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFWczPvi_5FWH%2BJTqkWbi%2Bw83hy%3DMYg%3D2hKK0%3DJZBe9%3DhTpE4w%40mail.gmail.com > > > > for > > more info. > > Yes, I can get the idea that grouping more replication messages in > one shot can be beneficial in some cases while being > environment-dependent, though I also get the point that we cannot > simply GUC-ify everything either. I'm OK with this one at the end, > because it is not performance critical. > > Note that it got lowered to the current value in ea5516081dcb to make > it more responsive, while being half a WAL segment in 40f908bdcdc7 > when WAL senders have been introduced in 2010. I cannot pinpoint the > exact thread that led to this change, but I'm adding Fujii-san and > Heikki in CC for comments. > -- > Michael >
