Re: Log rotation

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>
Cc: Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Log rotation
Date: 2004-03-14 17:46:17
Message-ID: 200403141246.17674.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sunday 14 March 2004 12:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> >> Third, it seems that you don't have enough profiling data to support
> >> a 'syslog is bad' position.
> >
> > That is true. It is from hearsay, from people who run production
> > environments. It may be a belief based on old experiences though.
>
> I think it's pretty well established that syslog sucks for high log
> volume if you run it in the mode where it fsyncs its log after every
> message. But I don't believe we have any data that says it's a problem
> even if you avoid that pitfall.
>

Yep. The other basic thing I recomend is putting syslog/log output on a
different disk than where your data goes. Maybe not proactical for everyone,
but not a big deal for "enterprise" level users (which was the op's target
audience)

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-03-14 18:50:05 Re: Log rotation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-14 17:45:08 Re: listening addresses