|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:07:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you have a user devoted to it, I suppose that's true. I still
> > > > think it shouldn't get munged together like that.
> > >
> > > Why do we need to treat only replication commands as special ones and
> > > add new parameter to display them?
> > One difference is that replication commands are internally generated
> > commands. Do we anywhere else log such internally generated
> > commands with log_statement = all?
Not entirely sure what you're referring to as 'internally generated'
here.. While they can come from another backend, they don't have to.
> Good point --- we do not. In fact, this is similar to how we don't log
> SPI queries, e.g. SQL queries inside functions. We might want to enable
> that someday too. Could we enable logging of both with a single GUC?
I don't see those as the same at all. I'd like to see improved
flexibility in this area, certainly, but don't want two independent
considerations like these tied to one GUC..
|Next Message||Bruce Momjian||2014-08-12 23:00:56||Re: jsonb format is pessimal for toast compression|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2014-08-12 22:52:44||Re: Minmax indexes|