| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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 17:10:38 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909281010t6973ffe5w6d0a0a0811f3aeea@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
I think the behavior I was proposing was neither "drop" nor "wait",
but "buffer". Not sure how people feel about that.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-09-28 17:26:06 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-28 17:07:05 | Re: syslog_line_prefix |