Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> > And no, "use syslog" doesn't count.
> 
> Why not?

The standard implementations of syslog lose log entries under heavy
load, because they rely on a daemon which reads from a named pipe with
a limited buffer space.  This is not acceptable in a production
system, since heavy load is often just the time you need to see the
log entries.

It would be possible to implement the syslog(3) interface in a
different way, of course, which did not use syslogd.  I don't know of
any such implementation.

(My personal preference these days is an approach like DJB's
daemontools, which separates the handling of log entries from the
program doing the logging.)

Ian

In response to

• Re: Log rotation? at 2001-09-06 03:19:45 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Log rotation? at 2001-09-06 04:04:14 from Tom Lane
• Re: Log rotation? at 2001-09-06 14:08:21 from Matthew Hagerty

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-09-06 04:04:14
	Subject: Re: Log rotation?
Previous:	From: Doug McNaught	Date: 2001-09-06 03:28:10
	Subject: Re: Is there a problem running vacuum in the middle of a transaction?