Hi Antonin, On 1/10/18 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
I think this feature would be useful, especially for an extension like pgaudit. It's a request I hear fairly frequently. However, there doesn't seem to be consensus that this is a viable approach, so marked as Returned with Feedback for this CF. This may be too invasive a feature to be a good fit for the last PG11 CF in March but I hope you keep working on the idea. Regards, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
