Re: [HACKERS] Improve logical decoding error message (was wal_level> WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Improve logical decoding error message (was wal_level> WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170523131210.lpbe42kqaufy4whj@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Improve logical decoding error message (was wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL) (Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-05-23 10:49:54 +0000, Neha Khatri wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2017 at 10:55 am, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > Neha Khatri wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier < > > michael.paquier@gmail.com > > > > > > There is no wal_level higher than logical, so the current sense looks > > > > perfectly fine to me. > > > > > > If there is no wal_level higher than logical, should the following error > > > message indicate to set it >= logical. > > > > > > select * from > > > pg_create_logical_replication_slot('regression_slot','test_decoding'); > > > ERROR: logical decoding requires wal_level >= logical > > > > I think it's purposefully ambiguous to cover a possible future > > extension. Right, IIRC that's how this notion started. > Should documentation also have similar statement and indicate future > possibility. > > What is the benefit of having it just in error message. I personally wouldn't do anything here, it doesn't seem an issue. - Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: