Re: log_duration is redundant, no?

On 9/16/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The only asymmetry in the thing is that if log_statement fired then
> we suppress duplicate printing of the query in the later duration log
> message (if any) for that query.  But that seems like the right thing
> if you're at all concerned about log volume.

Perhaps I'm not representative of the users of these settings but when
I used log_statement='all', I didn't really care about the log volume.
I knew it really generates a lot of log lines and it slows down my
database.

My only concern was that we now have less information with
log_statement='all' than with log_min_duration_statement.

That said, I don't use it myself now: I use exclusively
log_min_duration_statement and log_duration. So if you think it's
better like that, it's ok for me.

Does anyone else have an opinion about this?

--
Guillaume