Re: replication commands and log_statements

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Subject: Re: replication commands and log_statements
Date: 2014-08-19 17:06:19
Message-ID: CA+TgmobbpoS3woHeDcF0kzeEZ3ZXTY-J7BCi7Sj0MtOgX_cfVQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think ideally it would have been better if we could have logged
> replication commands under separate log_level, but as still there
> is no consensus on extending log_statement and nobody is even
> willing to pursue, it seems okay to go ahead and log these under
> 'all' level.

I think the consensus is clearly for a separate GUC.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rahila Syed 2014-08-19 18:36:45 Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-08-19 17:05:07 Re: bad estimation together with large work_mem generates terrible slow hash joins