Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 17:46, Tom Lane <t...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
