On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 17:46, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I think it'd make more sense just to say that replication connections >>> are subject to the same log_connections rule as others. An extra GUC >>> for this is surely overkill. > >> I thought so, but Robert didn't agree. And given that things are the >> way they are, clearly somebody else didn't agree as well - though I've >> been unable to locate the original discussion if there was one. > > The existing behavior dates from here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-03/msg00245.php > > As best I can tell there was no preceding discussion, just Simon > unilaterally deciding that this logging was required for debugging > purposes. (There is a followup thread in -hackers arguing about the > message wording, but nobody questioned whether it should come out > unconditionally.) > > I'm of the opinion that the correct way of "lowering in later releases" > is to make the messages obey Log_connections. The "needed for debug" > argument seems mighty weak to me even for the time, and surely falls > down now.
On a busy system, you could have a pretty high rate of messages spewing forth for regular connections - that's a lot to wade through if all you really want to see are the replication connections, which should be much lower volume. But I guess now that we have pg_stat_replication it's a little easier to see the status of replication anyway. On the whole I've found the default setting here very pleasant, so I'm reluctant to change it, but it sounds like I might be out-voted. -- 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