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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we say "wal_level = logical" instead of "wal_level >= logical"
Date: 2025-10-20 15:11:41
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaDBoFCnwdWuP608q6ancveKAOkvwut0eX1L6oy6Eq48A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:20 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Do you have thoughts about the patch?

I agree with the rationale that Ashutosh states but I don't see a
strong need to patch the code to make this a 100% invariable rule. (Of
course, someone else may disagree, which is fine.)

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-10-20 15:29:21 Re: misleading error message in ProcessUtilitySlow T_CreateStatsStmt
Previous Message Oleg Tselebrovskiy 2025-10-20 15:05:12 Re: Proposal for enabling auto-vectorization for checksum calculations