Antonin Houska <a...@cybertec.at> writes: > After having read the thread on your patch I think that the reason you were > asked to evaluate performance was that your patch can possibly make syslogger > a bottleneck. In contrast, my patch does not prevent user from disabling the > syslogger if it (the syslogger) seems to cause performance issues.
Just to clarify that: we know that in workloads that emit lots of log output, the log collector *already is* a bottleneck; there are reports that some people can't use it because it's too slow. See e.g. towards the end of this thread: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABUevExztL0GORyWM9S4tR_Ft3FmJbRaxQdxj%2BBQZjpvmRurdw%40mail.gmail.com and particularly the referenced thread from 2011. (I seem to recall other reports but didn't have much luck finding them.) I'm quite concerned by the proposed patch, and not even so much any performance issues; what bothers me is that it adds complexity into a portion of the system where we can ill afford it. Bugs in the logging mechanism compromise one's ability to have any faith in tracking down other bugs. The difficulty of reconfiguring the logger on the fly is another reason to not want more configuration options for it. On the whole, therefore, I'd just as soon not go there --- especially seeing that there's been little field demand for such features. regards, tom lane
