On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > I think ideally it would have been better if we could have logged >>> > replication commands under separate log_level, but as still there >>> > is no consensus on extending log_statement and nobody is even >>> > willing to pursue, it seems okay to go ahead and log these under >>> > 'all' level. >>> >>> I think the consensus is clearly for a separate GUC. >> >> +1. > > Okay. Attached is the updated version of the patch which I posted before. > This patch follows the consensus and adds separate parameter > "log_replication_command".
Looks fine to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
