Re: replication commands and log_statements

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 08:51:13AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> > At 2014-08-07 23:22:43 +0900, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>>>> >> That is, we log replication commands only when log_statement is set to
>>>> >> all. Neither new parameter is introduced nor log_statement is
>>>> >> redefined as a list.
>>>> >
>>>> > That sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds fairly unprincipled to me. I liked the idea of making
>>>> log_statement a list, but if we aren't gonna do that, I think this
>>>> should be a separate parameter.
>>>
>>> I am unclear there is enough demand for a separate replication logging
>>> parameter --- using log_statement=all made sense to me.
>>
>> Most people don't want to turn on log_statement=all because it
>> produces too much log volume.
>>
>> See, for example:
>> http://bonesmoses.org/2014/08/05/on-postgresql-logging-verbosity/
>>
>> But logging replication commands is quite low-volume, so it is not
>> hard to imagine someone wanting to log all replication commands but
>> not all SQL statements.
>
> You can do that by executing
> "ALTER ROLE <replication user> SET log_statement TO 'all'".
> If you don't use the replication user to execute SQL statements,
> no SQL statements are logged in that setting.

If you have a user devoted to it, I suppose that's true. I still
think it shouldn't get munged together like that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company