Re: replication commands and log_statements

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Your wish just seems like a separate feature to me. Including
> replication commands in 'all' seems correct independent of the desire
> for a more granular control.

No, I think I've got to vote with the other side on that.

The reason we can have log_statement as a scalar progression
"none < ddl < mod < all" is that there's little visible use-case
for logging DML but not DDL, nor for logging SELECTS but not
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE.  However, logging replication commands seems
like something people would reasonably want an orthogonal control for.
There's no nice way to squeeze such a behavior into log_statement.

I guess you could say that log_statement treats replication commands
as if they were DDL, but is that really going to satisfy users?

I think we should consider log_statement to control logging of
SQL only, and invent a separate GUC (or, in the future, likely
more than one GUC?) for logging of replication activity.
        regards, tom lane