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

From: Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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 10:49:54
Message-ID: CAFO0U+-pc_fQARUUUwNZRBtqJtSTfgtL+5Cy_nct4NHOcEAXdg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.
>

Should documentation also have similar statement and indicate future
possibility.

What is the benefit of having it just in error message.

Regards,
Neha
--
Cheers,
Neha

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2017-05-23 10:56:58 Re: Tightening isspace() tests where behavior should match SQL parser
Previous Message Mahi Gurram 2017-05-23 10:42:03 Regarding Postgres Dynamic Shared Memory (DSA)