Robert Haas escribió:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Tom Lane escribió:
> >> [ please trim the quoted material a bit, folks ]
> >>
> >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> > 2009/9/28 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
