Re: Improve logical decoding error message (was wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improve logical decoding error message (was wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)
Date: 2017-05-23 00:55:16
Message-ID: 20170523005516.wl65wp2khrp7mr65@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neha Khatri wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)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.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-05-23 01:47:18 Re: Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation
Previous Message Neha Khatri 2017-05-23 00:47:51 Re: Improve logical decoding error message (was wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)