| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication logging |
| Date: | 2011-01-18 15:57:35 |
| Message-ID: | 10734.1295366255@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Is there *any* usecase for setting them differently though?
I can't believe we're still engaged in painting this bikeshed. Let's
just control it off log_connections and have done.
BTW, what about log_disconnections --- does a walsender emit a message
according to that? If not, why not? If we go through with something
fancy on the connection side, are we going to invent the same extra
complexity for log_disconnections? And if we do, what happens when
they're set inconsistently?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-18 16:15:02 | Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-18 15:53:53 | Re: pg_filedump moved to pgfoundry |