On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug  8, 2014 at 08:51:13AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <a...@2ndquadrant.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > At 2014-08-07 23:22:43 +0900, masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> That is, we log replication commands only when log_statement is set to
>> >> all. Neither new parameter is introduced nor log_statement is
>> >> redefined as a list.
>> >
>> > That sounds good to me.
>> It sounds fairly unprincipled to me.  I liked the idea of making
>> log_statement a list, but if we aren't gonna do that, I think this
>> should be a separate parameter.
> I am unclear there is enough demand for a separate replication logging
> parameter --- using log_statement=all made sense to me.

Most people don't want to turn on log_statement=all because it
produces too much log volume.

See, for example:

But logging replication commands is quite low-volume, so it is not
hard to imagine someone wanting to log all replication commands but
not all SQL statements.

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:

Reply via email to