| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication logging |
| Date: | 2011-01-18 15:42:38 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinwjFGE2sRxAde2RXQ_ZDBt5T_bg8Hedr1P+-=2@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:56, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> We should treat log_disconnections the same?
>>
>> We could keep it a boolean, but then only log disconnections for the
>> cases that are mentioned in log_connections?
>>
>> It doesn't make sense to log disconnection for a connection we didn't
>> log the connection for...
>
> Maybe true. But, at least for me, it's more intuitive to provide both as
> enum parameters.
Is there *any* usecase for setting them differently though? (other
than connections being <something> and disconnectoins being <none>?)
If not, aren't we just encouraging people to configure in a way that
makes no sense?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simone Aiken | 2011-01-18 15:46:18 | Re: ToDo List Item - System Table Index Clustering |
| Previous Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2011-01-18 15:34:42 | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |