Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 10:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > > Is there *any* usecase for setting them differently though? > > > > I can't believe we're still engaged in painting this bikeshed. Let's > > just control it off log_connections and have done. > > Yes, this is a waste of time. Leave it as is because its there for a > very good reason, as Robert already explained. > > The code was put in explicitly because debugging replication connections > is quite important and prior to that addition, wasn't easy. It's a very > separate thing from logging the hundreds/thousands of other connections > on the system. > > I don't really care about neatness of code, or neatness of parameters. I > want to be able to confirm the details of the connection. > pg_stat_replication is dynamic, not a historical record of connections > and reconnections. > > How else will you diagnose an erratic network, or an accidental change > of authority? Replication is so important it isn't worth tidying away a > couple of lines of log. My objective is to make replication work, not to > reduce the size of the average log file by 1 or 2 lines. > > I'm particularly concerned that people make such changes too quickly. > There are many things in this area of code that need changing, but also > many more that do not. If we are to move forwards we need to avoid going > one step forwards, one step back.
There were enough people who wanted a change that we went ahead and did it --- if there was lack of agreement, we would have delayed longer. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers