From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication logging |
Date: | 2011-01-17 15:31:59 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim0=NUyDnBjZMYZBHn9_HXvzKB44dhorduWy+BX@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:03, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>>> What do you have in mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> Either having it controlled by log_connections, or perhaps have a
>>>>> log_highpriv_connections that controls replication *and* superuser, to
>>>>> be somewhat consistent.
>>>>
>>>> -1. We could provide an option to turn this on and off, but I
>>>> wouldn't want it merged with log_connections or logging of superuser
>>>> connections.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, we could have a log_replication_connections as a separate
>>> one then? Or having one log_connections, one
>>> log_replication_connections and one log_superuser_connections?
>>
>> log_replication_connections seems reasonable. Not sure about
>> log_superuser_connections.
>
> So basically like this (see attachment).
Yeah. Although maybe we should take this opportunity to eliminate the
funky capitalization of Log_connections.
>>> Do we have an example of this hook somewhere already? If not, it could
>>> be made into a useful example of that, perhaps?
>>
>> contrib/auth_delay
>
> Hmm, ok, so not that then :-)
Doesn't preclude this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-17 15:38:40 | Re: Replication logging |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-01-17 15:28:27 | Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW] |