Tom Lane escribió: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Tom Lane escribió: > >> 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. > > Hmm, I guess I missed where you proposed an implementation that would > support that?
syslog uses a nonblocking file descriptor without a retry loop to implement their logic. I see no reason we couldn't do that ourselves. Mixing it with regular blocking code could turn out to be nontrivial, but I don't think it's impossible. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
