Re: Log rotation

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Log rotation
Date: 2004-03-14 18:50:05
Message-ID: 200403141850.i2EIo5J01407@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

What versions of syslog fsync, and where is the syslog.conf option. I
don't see it on FreeBSD or Linux.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-14 18:59:54 Re: Log rotation
Previous Message Robert Treat 2004-03-14 17:46:17 Re: Log rotation