On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> > Tom Lane escribió: >> >> [ please trim the quoted material a bit, folks ] >> >> >> >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> >> > 2009/9/28 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.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. > > Given an arbitrary increase in log rate during an arbitrary length of > time, any buffer you keep will be filled.
True. But the activity might be bursty. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
