Re: replication commands and log_statements

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: replication commands and log_statements
Date: 2014-06-20 14:25:35
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQz8i9qBYxX-hhaaUGS3jm5P4ds5kcFrV1aR8Nzt2e9LA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> OK, I've just implemented the patch (attached) which does this, i.e., redefines
>> log_statement as a list. Thanks to the patch, log_statement can be set
>> to "none",
>> "ddl", "mod", "dml", "all", and any combinations of them. The meanings of
>> "none", "ddl", "mod" and "all" are the same as they are now. New setting value
>> "dml" loggs both data modification statements like INSERT and query access
>> statements like SELECT and COPY TO.
>
> I still don't like this one bit. It's turning log_statement from a
> reasonably clean design into a complete mess, which will be made even
> worse after you add replication control to it.
Yeah, I'd vote as well to let log_statement as it is (without
mentioning the annoyance it would cause to users), and to have
replication statement logging managed with a separate GUC for clarity.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2014-06-20 14:58:12 Re: Is analyze_new_cluster.sh still useful?
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2014-06-20 14:13:01 Re: [WIP] showing index maintenance on EXPLAIN