Re: Replication logging - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Replication logging
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinwjFGE2sRxAde2RXQ_ZDBt5T_bg8Hedr1P+-=2@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Replication logging  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Replication logging  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Replication logging  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:56, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> We should treat log_disconnections the same?
>>
>> We could keep it a boolean, but then only log disconnections for the
>> cases that are mentioned in log_connections?
>>
>> It doesn't make sense to log disconnection for a connection we didn't
>> log the connection for...
>
> Maybe true. But, at least for me, it's more intuitive to provide both as
> enum parameters.

Is there *any* usecase for setting them differently though? (other
than connections being <something> and disconnectoins being <none>?)
If not, aren't we just encouraging people to configure in a way that
makes no sense?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shigeru HANADA
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_filedump moved to pgfoundry