Re: Should we say "wal_level = logical" instead of "wal_level >= logical"

> On Nov 4, 2025, at 09:43, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 8:10 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ...
>> I think 0001 basically good. A tiny comment is that, in inval.c, "wal_level>=logical” doesn’t have white-spaces around “=“, while in the other two files, they have. So maybe all add white-spaces around “=“ here.
>>
>> For 0002, I have a fixed feeling.
>>
>> This change is okay to me:
>> ```
>> - if (wal_level != WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)
>> + if (wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)
>> ```
>>
>> But I really don’t like the error message changes:
>> ```
>> if (nslots_on_old > 0 && strcmp(wal_level, "logical") != 0)
>> - pg_fatal("\"wal_level\" must be \"logical\" but is set to \"%s\"",
>> + pg_fatal("\"wal_level\" must be \"logical\" or higher but is set to \"%s\"",
>> ```
>> And
>> ```
>> -HINT: Set "wal_level" to "logical" before creating subscriptions.
>> +HINT: Set "wal_level" >= "logical" before creating subscriptions.
>> ```
>>
>> Which will really make end users confused. I believe end users don’t care about so-called future extensions, they only need accurate information.
>>
>
> Hi Chao.
>
> Thanks for your review comments. Here are the v3* patches.
>
> * Patch 0001 - Fixed spaces per suggestion.
>
> * Patch 0002 - Unchanged. For now, this patch 0002 is mostly only a
> placeholder until Sawada-San's patch [1] is pushed, and then I will
> revisit it. There is lots of overlap, so perhaps much of it will be
> made redundant.
>
> ======
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAD21AoAtqpZW%3DzC57qxEFbBCVhJ2kF2HXmuUT3w_tHGZCYmpnw%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Kind Regards,
> Peter Smith.
> Fujitsu Australia
> <v3-0002-fix-wal_level-equality-code.patch><v3-0001-fix-wal_level-equality-comments.patch>

0001 looks good to me now.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/