On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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: >> http://bonesmoses.org/2014/08/05/on-postgresql-logging-verbosity/ >> >> 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. > > You can do that by executing > "ALTER ROLE <replication user> SET log_statement TO 'all'". > If you don't use the replication user to execute SQL statements, > no SQL statements are logged in that setting.
If you have a user devoted to it, I suppose that's true. I still think it shouldn't get munged together like that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers