Re: replication commands and log_statements

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
>> OK, I've just implemented the patch (attached) which does this, i.e., redefines
>> log_statement as a list. Thanks to the patch, log_statement can be set
>> to "none",
>> "ddl", "mod", "dml", "all", and any combinations of them. The meanings of
>> "none", "ddl", "mod" and "all" are the same as they are now. New setting value
>> "dml" loggs both data modification statements like INSERT and query access
>> statements like SELECT and COPY TO.
>
> I still don't like this one bit.  It's turning log_statement from a
> reasonably clean design into a complete mess, which will be made even
> worse after you add replication control to it.
Yeah, I'd vote as well to let log_statement as it is (without
mentioning the annoyance it would cause to users), and to have
replication statement logging managed with a separate GUC for clarity.
-- 
Michael