From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: syslog_line_prefix |
Date: | 2009-09-25 21:02:52 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070909251402v674a00c2wc3ec85216f1306ef@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 22:18, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Other than if you're logging all your queries (or over <n> time, where
>>> <n> is very small), I've never seen a system with performance issues
>>> from logging. I'm sure others may have, but not me.
>>>
>>> Is there really any log output other than the
>>> query-logging-for-performance-analysis that is likely to cause any
>>> real load on the system? If not, perhaps we need to break out that
>>> part to a separate codepath instead, and optimize that one for speed,
>>> while optimizing the other paths for flexibility?
>>
>> Not sure, but I doubt it's that easy.
>
> If we are talking about the "log query duration" or "log queries
> longer than <n>" that's a single location in the code. It can't be
> that hard...
I'm not sure that's really the only thing that can cause a logging
bottleneck. I would be kinda surprised.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-25 21:03:56 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Unicode escapes in E'...' strings Author: Marko Kreen |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-09-25 21:01:07 | Re: syslog_line_prefix |