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.
...Robert
