From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) |
Date: | 2012-01-18 16:27:40 |
Message-ID: | 4F16F2FC.3010704@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/18/2012 11:12 AM, Martin Pihlak wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 03:56 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> or syslog process (if you use syslog). So ISTM that there is no
>> guarantee that the order of log messages processed by the
>> hook is same as that of messages written to the log file. For
>> example, imagine the case where two backends call EmitErrorReport()
>> at the same time. Is this OK? If not, the hook might need to be
>> in syslogger.
> For high volume logging I'd avoid going through the syslogger. One
> big issue with syslogger is that it creates a choke point - everything
> has to pass through it, and if it cannot keep up it starts stalling
> the backends. Also, in EmitErrorReport the hook gets to have access
> to the actual ErrorData structure -- that makes filtering and looking
> at message content much simpler.
>
>
Hmm, interesting. I don't think I've encountered a situation where
backends would actually stall. But in any case, I don't think we have to
be that deterministic. The only thing that needs to be absolutely
guaranteed is that the log messages from a given backend are in order.
Some slight fuzz between backends seems acceptable.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-18 16:41:42 | Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) |
Previous Message | Martin Pihlak | 2012-01-18 16:12:49 | Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) |