| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, jd <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: syslog_line_prefix |
| Date: | 2009-09-28 17:07:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20090928170705.GB5269@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-28 17:10:38 | Re: syslog_line_prefix |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-28 16:56:10 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |