Re: [HACKERS] wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL
| От | Neha Khatri |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFO0U+-rKLYn9ofTRFX-2uNQ4e34LWg_AQ3DZ8r+s5u02_F77A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 10:29 pm, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com> wrote:
> As per my understabding, current postgres server supports only three
> values for wal_level i.e. 'minimal' , 'replica' or 'logical'. But
> following error message brought to notice that there are various code
> spots that try to look for wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL:
I suspect that this was intended as future-proofing. I think it's
actually very reasonable to write the internal tests that way,
Agreed. Share the same thought and also started another thread just for the user visible error message improvement [1]. In that thread the error message is perceived to be correct.
but it
does seem strange that it's crept into the user-visible error
messages.
Yep, this seems useful for developer but not the end user.
Regards,
Neha
--
Cheers,
Neha
Neha
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: