Subject: bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:48:39 -0400

Gerd Möllmann [2022-09-13 07:53:47] wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> writes:
>>> 1. Multi-tty make me feel it's natural to make the behavior terminal
>>> dependent.  At least I don't consider unreasonable for a user to expect
>>> being able to tailor the behavior depending on the terminal.
>>
>> I guess the reason why I think it's over-engineered is that I feel it's
>> not something which end-users will want to play with or configure
>> per-terminal: we should have a setting that works well everywhere.
>
> I really good default would indeed be a Good Thing.  But, on the other
> hand, I think it's not likely that we find something that works for
> everyone all the time.

Really?  AFAICT noone has complained about the existing behavior (the
change under discussion was prompted by looking at the code, no?), so
what we currently have seems to work quite well "for everyone all the time".

> As far as the OS default goes (1024 on my system), I don't think I agree
> completely.  A frame on a full-size terminal window has a width of
> ca. 380 columns, which is a bit much for a buffer of 1024.

I tend to agree that 1kB sounds a bit small (from a network perspective,
I'd expect >1.5kB, to fill a typical Ethernet frame) but whether it
matters or not really depends how the "per packet" vs "per byte"
overheads compare.

        Stefan