Re: syslog_line_prefix

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Tom Lane escribió:
>> >> [ please trim the quoted material a bit, folks ]
>> >>
>> >> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> >> > 2009/9/28 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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.

True. But the activity might be bursty.

...Robert