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

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: 2026-01-05 23:29:09
Message-ID: CAHut+PuwB1_z2nh6QYF6mE22a=93s6pkL87t097NDZ3MCzJa+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

FYI - I confirmed that all of my proposed changes have already been
addressed by Sawada-San's commit [1], so now there is nothing to do
for this thread.

The End.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chao Li 2026-01-05 23:44:56 Re: Fix incorrect buffer lock description in pg_visibility comment
Previous Message Bryan Green 2026-01-05 23:26:28 Re: [PATCH] Allow complex data for GUC extra.