| From: | Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Log rotation? |
| Date: | 2001-09-06 03:54:44 |
| Message-ID: | si4rqhvurf.fsf@daffy.airs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > And no, "use syslog" doesn't count.
>
> Why not?
The standard implementations of syslog lose log entries under heavy
load, because they rely on a daemon which reads from a named pipe with
a limited buffer space. This is not acceptable in a production
system, since heavy load is often just the time you need to see the
log entries.
It would be possible to implement the syslog(3) interface in a
different way, of course, which did not use syslogd. I don't know of
any such implementation.
(My personal preference these days is an approach like DJB's
daemontools, which separates the handling of log entries from the
program doing the logging.)
Ian
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-06 04:04:14 | Re: Log rotation? |
| Previous Message | Doug McNaught | 2001-09-06 03:28:10 | Re: Is there a problem running vacuum in the middle of a transaction? |