Thread

  1. Re: Excessive LOG messages from replication slot sync worker

    Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> — 2025-08-12T11:13:51Z

    On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 07:58:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
    > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:14 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 6:25 PM Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > > I believe that the format %X-%X also works with sscanf(). However, to maintain
    > > > consistency, the format for sscanf() has been updated as well.
    > >
    > > Yes.
    > > Thanks for the patch!
    > 
    > With the patch, the excessive LOG messages from the replication slot sync
    > worker are gone. However, it still logged periodically, about two messages
    > every 30 seconds, for example:
    > 
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:03.288 JST [sby][slotsync worker] LOG:  starting
    > logical decoding for slot "mysub"
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:03.288 JST [sby][slotsync worker] DETAIL:  Streaming
    > transactions committing after 0/0FAD3940, reading WAL from 0/0D4C9CE8.
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:03.289 JST [sby][slotsync worker] LOG:  logical
    > decoding found consistent point at 0/0D4C9CE8
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:03.289 JST [sby][slotsync worker] DETAIL:  Logical
    > decoding will begin using saved snapshot.
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:46.048 JST [sby][slotsync worker] LOG:  starting
    > logical decoding for slot "mysub"
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:46.048 JST [sby][slotsync worker] DETAIL:  Streaming
    > transactions committing after 0/10A60230, reading WAL from 0/0FAEE120.
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:46.049 JST [sby][slotsync worker] LOG:  logical
    > decoding found consistent point at 0/0FAEE120
    > 2025-08-12 19:49:46.049 JST [sby][slotsync worker] DETAIL:  Logical
    > decoding will begin using saved snapshot.
    > 
    >
    I think this is not related to the logical snapshot name.
    
    > 
    > I'm not sure these messages are useful for end users, and LOG might not be
    > the right level. They seem more like debug information, so should we consider
    > changing them to DEBUG, even with the proposed patch applied?
    
    +1.
    
    -- 
    Best regards,
    Japin Li
    ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co., LTD.