Re: Replication logging

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I'm particularly concerned that people make such changes too quickly.
>> There are many things in this area of code that need changing, but also
>> many more that do not. If we are to move forwards we need to avoid going
>> one step forwards, one step back.

> There were enough people who wanted a change that we went ahead and did
> it --- if there was lack of agreement, we would have delayed longer.

The real reason why we changed this is that nobody (except Simon) sees
a situation where unconditional logging of successful replication
connections is especially helpful.  If you were trying to diagnose a
problem you would more likely need to know about *failed* connections,
but the code that was in there didn't provide that.  At least not unless
you turned on log_connections ...
        regards, tom lane