On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 12:28 PM Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 8:15 PM Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 12:44 AM Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Alternatively, if we want to keep them at LOG by default, we could > > > > > introduce > > > > > a GUC like trace_logical_decoding_messages, similar to > > > > > the old trace_recovery_messages, to control their verbosity > > > > > independently > > > > > of log_min_messages. > > > > Just in case where many users still want to see those log messages at LOG > > level, > > I also created a second patch (0002) that introduces a new GUC, > > trace_logical_decoding_messages, to control logging of logical > > decoding debug messages (e.g., "logical decoding found consistent point"). > > -1 for another GUC. If needed, we could explore using > log_replication_commands, but I'm okay with your other suggestion on > using the new feature with log_min_messages.
I'd prefer this approach. > Perhaps, we could wait > for some time to hear from others. +1. If there are no further comments in the next few days, and given the limited time before feature freeze, I'm inclined to at least apply the 0001 patch (which simply lowers the log level to DEBUG1). Regards, -- Fujii Masao
