At 08:54 PM 9/5/2001 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > And no, "use syslog" doesn't count.
> >
> > Why not?
>
>The standard implementations of syslog lose log entries under heavy
>load, because they rely on a daemon which reads from a named pipe with
>a limited buffer space. This is not acceptable in a production
>system, since heavy load is often just the time you need to see the
>log entries.
>
>It would be possible to implement the syslog(3) interface in a
>different way, of course, which did not use syslogd. I don't know of
>any such implementation.
>
>(My personal preference these days is an approach like DJB's
>daemontools, which separates the handling of log entries from the
>program doing the logging.)
>
>Ian
Greetings,
Kind of ironic, I have been working on a similar logging system for Apache
that works with PostgreSQL, and I just released 2.0-beta last night. My
post to announcements was delayed, but you can check it out here:
http://www.digitalstratum.com/pglogd/
If pgLOGd looks like something similar to what you are looking for, I could
probably modify it to log for PostgreSQL. Two of its requirements during
development were fast and robust, and similar to what you described above
it does not "process" the entries, that is done later. You also got me
thinking that maybe syslogd needs an overhaul too...
Matthew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
