Re: replication commands and log_statements

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.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao