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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 4:49 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 2:11 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.)
> >
>
> In case it makes any difference...
>
> The codebase already follows this rule in 95% of cases. The patch
> simply corrects a couple of inconsistencies that appeared to be
> accidental oversights.

I think we should accept comment-only changes in the patch. With those
changes comments are consistent with the code; otherwise code-readers
will get confused. I don't have a strong opinion about the comment +
code changes though. They may wait till changes in [1] get committed.
As Robert said, we may not want that to be an invariable rule.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat