On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:03, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>>>>> What do you have in mind? >>>>> >>>>> Either having it controlled by log_connections, or perhaps have a >>>>> log_highpriv_connections that controls replication *and* superuser, to >>>>> be somewhat consistent. >>>> >>>> -1. We could provide an option to turn this on and off, but I >>>> wouldn't want it merged with log_connections or logging of superuser >>>> connections. >>> >>> Fair enough, we could have a log_replication_connections as a separate >>> one then? Or having one log_connections, one >>> log_replication_connections and one log_superuser_connections? >> >> log_replication_connections seems reasonable. Not sure about >> log_superuser_connections. > > So basically like this (see attachment).
Yeah. Although maybe we should take this opportunity to eliminate the funky capitalization of Log_connections. >>> Do we have an example of this hook somewhere already? If not, it could >>> be made into a useful example of that, perhaps? >> >> contrib/auth_delay > > Hmm, ok, so not that then :-) Doesn't preclude this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
