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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 13:12:10
Message-ID: 20170523131210.lpbe42kqaufy4whj@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: 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(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mithun Cy 2017-05-23 13:36:58 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Previous Message tushar 2017-05-23 13:07:40 Re: Getting server crash after running sqlsmith