| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, jd <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: syslog_line_prefix |
| Date: | 2009-09-28 19:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20090928192733.GF5269@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-28 19:31:50 | Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2009-09-28 19:19:28 | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |