MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHGQGwGTyHgtD9tyN664x6vQ8Q1G53H7ZUCgBU9_X=nLt3f1QA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACX_SSJYKt5od1C2874yeotTO9JewfRY9B=3DYx2daUAMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwHTuLKTmW5DHtx-5yMuEq4=fc7M+UuvdOVekyvfsi=48Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwFB+hC97SHDpn1vOHHOq9uM5OZZmt50j7v6Z1JUNtH5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACXwe+iVoE50epmfGahYfoeBadgRr8ADvNHshWn0svv9hw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALj2ACXwe+iVoE50epmfGahYfoeBadgRr8ADvNHshWn0svv9hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:54:07 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwHUK6gMxF_dO2ei7xFt6ncegACi82BHq4zCMsBuVkxd_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reduce log level of some logical decoding messages to DEBUG1
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwHUK6gMxF_dO2ei7xFt6ncegACi82BHq4zCMsBuVkxd_w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 12:28=E2=80=AFPM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 8:15=E2=80=AFPM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 12:44=E2=80=AFAM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail=
.com> wrote:
> > > > > Alternatively, if we want to keep them at LOG by default, we coul=
d introduce
> > > > > a GUC like trace_logical_decoding_messages, similar to
> > > > > the old trace_recovery_messages, to control their verbosity indep=
endently
> > > > > of log_min_messages.
> >
> > Just in case where many users still want to see those log messages at L=
OG 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 limite=
d
time before feature freeze, I'm inclined to at least apply the 0001 patch
(which simply lowers the log level to DEBUG1).

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao