Re: Replication logging

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Replication logging
Дата
Msg-id 18142.1295290633@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Replication logging  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Ответы Re: Replication logging  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 17:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think it'd make more sense just to say that replication connections
>> are subject to the same log_connections rule as others. �An extra GUC
>> for this is surely overkill.

> I thought so, but Robert didn't agree. And given that things are the
> way they are, clearly somebody else didn't agree as well - though I've
> been unable to locate the original discussion if there was one.

The existing behavior dates from here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-03/msg00245.php

As best I can tell there was no preceding discussion, just Simon
unilaterally deciding that this logging was required for debugging
purposes.  (There is a followup thread in -hackers arguing about the
message wording, but nobody questioned whether it should come out
unconditionally.)

I'm of the opinion that the correct way of "lowering in later releases"
is to make the messages obey Log_connections.  The "needed for debug"
argument seems mighty weak to me even for the time, and surely falls
down now.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Chris Browne
Дата:
Сообщение: Review: compact fsync request queue on overflow
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Replication logging