Robert Haas escribió: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > Tom Lane escribió: > >> [ please trim the quoted material a bit, folks ] > >> > >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > >> > 2009/9/28 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > >> >> The problem with having the syslogger send the data directly to an > >> >> external process is that the external process might be unable to > >> >> process the data as fast as syslogger is sending it. I'm not sure > >> >> exactly what will happen in that case, but it will definitely be bad. > >> > >> This is the same issue already raised with respect to syslog versus > >> syslogger, ie, some people would rather lose log data than have the > >> backends block waiting for it to be written. > > > > That could be made configurable; i.e. let the user choose whether to > > lose messages or to make everybody wait. > > I think the behavior I was proposing was neither "drop" nor "wait", > but "buffer". Not sure how people feel about that.
Given an arbitrary increase in log rate during an arbitrary length of time, any buffer you keep will be filled. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
