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. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
