Re: [HACKERS] Receive buffer size for the statistics socket

2017-05-29 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: >> I propose that it'd be a good idea to try to set the stats socket's >> receive buffer size to be a minimum of, say, 100K on all platforms. >> Code for this would be analogous to what we already have in pqcomm.c >> (circa line 760) for forcing up the send buffer size, but SO_RCVBUF >> no

Re: [HACKERS] Receive buffer size for the statistics socket

2017-05-15 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > I propose that it'd be a good idea to try to set the stats socket's > receive buffer size to be a minimum of, say, 100K on all platforms. > Code for this would be analogous to what we already have in pqcomm.c > (circa line 760) for forcing up the send buffer size, but SO_RCVBUF > not SO_

Re: [HACKERS] Receive buffer size for the statistics socket

2017-05-15 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 05/14/2017 09:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> A further idea is that maybe backends should be tweaked to avoid >> blasting large amounts of data at the stats collector in one go. >> That would require more thought to design, though. > The data is already sent in small <

Re: [HACKERS] Receive buffer size for the statistics socket

2017-05-15 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 05/14/2017 09:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Also, it's clear that a session could easily shove much more than 8KB at a time out to the stats collector, because what we're doing in the stats test does not involve touching any very large number of tables. So I think this is not just a test failure but

[HACKERS] Receive buffer size for the statistics socket

2017-05-14 Thread Tom Lane
So I put in the patch I'd proposed to reduce sleep delays in the stats regression test, and I see that frogmouth has now failed that test twice, with symptoms suggesting that it's dropping the last stats report --- but not all of the stats reports --- from the test's first session. I considered rev