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

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 9:09 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

OK, here is the same patch split into comment-only changes, and code-changes.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia