On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Tom Lane escribió: >> [ please trim the quoted material a bit, folks ] >> >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> > 2009/9/28 Robert Haas <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
