On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> 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.
True. But the activity might be bursty.
...Robert
