On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Amit Kapila (amit.kapila16@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> > Not entirely sure what you're referring to as 'internally generated'
>> > here..
>>
>> Here 'internally generated' means that user doesn't execute those
>> statements, rather the replication/backup code form these statements
>> (IDENTIFY_SYSTEM, TIMELINE_HISTORY, BASE_BACKUP, ...)
>> and send to server to get the appropriate results.
>
> You could argue the same about pg_dump.. I'd not thought of it before,
> but it might be kind of neat to have psql support "connect in
> replication mode" and then allow the user to run replication commands.
You can do that by specifying "replication=1" as the conninfo when
exexcuting psql. For example,
$ psql -d "replication=1"
psql (9.5devel)
Type "help" for help.
postgres=# IDENTIFY_SYSTEM; systemid | timeline | xlogpos | dbname
---------------------+----------+-----------+--------6047222920639525794 | 1 | 0/1711678 |
(1 row)
>> Agreed, I also think both are different and shouldn't be logged
>> with one GUC. Here the important thing to decide is which is
>> the better way to proceed for allowing logging of replication
>> commands such that it can allow us to extend it for more
>> things. We have discussed below options:
>>
>> a. Make log_statement a list of comma separated options
>> b. Have a separate parameter something like log_replication*
>> c. Log it when user has mentioned option 'all' in log_statement.
>
> Regarding this, I'm generally in the camp that says to just include it
> in 'all' and be done with it- for now. This is just another example
> of where we really need a much more granular and configurable framework
> for auditing and we're not going to get through GUCs, so let's keep the
> GUC based approach simple and familiar to our users and build a proper
> auditing system.
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
