Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01)

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01)
Date: 2012-01-18 16:27:40
Message-ID: 4F16F2FC.3010704@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/18/2012 11:12 AM, Martin Pihlak wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 03:56 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> or syslog process (if you use syslog). So ISTM that there is no
>> guarantee that the order of log messages processed by the
>> hook is same as that of messages written to the log file. For
>> example, imagine the case where two backends call EmitErrorReport()
>> at the same time. Is this OK? If not, the hook might need to be
>> in syslogger.
> For high volume logging I'd avoid going through the syslogger. One
> big issue with syslogger is that it creates a choke point - everything
> has to pass through it, and if it cannot keep up it starts stalling
> the backends. Also, in EmitErrorReport the hook gets to have access
> to the actual ErrorData structure -- that makes filtering and looking
> at message content much simpler.
>
>

Hmm, interesting. I don't think I've encountered a situation where
backends would actually stall. But in any case, I don't think we have to
be that deterministic. The only thing that needs to be absolutely
guaranteed is that the log messages from a given backend are in order.
Some slight fuzz between backends seems acceptable.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-01-18 16:41:42 Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01)
Previous Message Martin Pihlak 2012-01-18 16:12:49 Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01)