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. -- 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
