On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 1:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 4:28 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure these messages are useful for end users, and LOG might not be > > the right level. They seem more like debug information, so should we > > consider > > changing them to DEBUG, even with the proposed patch applied? > > > > Yeah, we can do that for slotsync path but it should be okay to keep > at LOG level for logical replication/decoding path as there it > shouldn't hit as often as in slotsync path.
It looks like those two LOG messages are also generated by pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes(). When this function is called every few seconds to capture changes in real time, it can produce a large number of these messages. So shouldn't we consider changing their log level to DEBUG also in such cases? > But OTH, there is a > argument that it can be DEBUG for logical replication/decoding path as > well. From my experience, I can tell that these messages have been > helpful in finding BF failures and debugging bugs from user reports, > so there is value in keeping them at LOG level. I understand these messages are useful for debugging, but if they're now not intended for end users, perhaps they should be DEBUG-level instead? We could also introduce a new GUC to control whether these messages are logged for debugging purposes and use it in regression tests for logical decoding, or just set log_min_messages to DEBUG in those tests. Thought? Regards, -- Fujii Masao
