Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane escribió:
> >> 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.
>
> Hmm, I guess I missed where you proposed an implementation that would
> support that?
syslog uses a nonblocking file descriptor without a retry loop to
implement their logic. I see no reason we couldn't do that ourselves.
Mixing it with regular blocking code could turn out to be nontrivial,
but I don't think it's impossible.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.