Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart

From: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart
Date: 2025-10-22 11:06:05
Message-ID: CAJpy0uCsbcLfD-P8=DySB8i3_9sD0y09nNr+mJZXWdMfLtiVLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 2:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 2:40 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 11:09 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I want to discuss the create-publication case, which currently gives
> > this warning:
> >
> > postgres=# create publication pub1 for all tables;
> > WARNING: logical decoding should be allowed to publish logical changes
> > HINT: Before creating subscriptions, set "wal_level" >= "logical" or
> > create a logical replication slot when "wal_level" = "replica".
> > CREATE PUBLICATION
> >
> > But is this warning really necessary during publication creation?
> >
>
> On HEAD, the WARNING/HINT is as follows for the above case:
> WARNING: "wal_level" is insufficient to publish logical changes
> HINT: Set "wal_level" to "logical" before creating subscriptions.
>
> Shouldn't we simply change the HINT to "Set "wal_level" to "logical"
> or create a logical replication slot before creating subscriptions."?
>

My point was do we really need this WARNING considering case a) does
not need it now and case b) also gives different ERROR (cases
mentioned in previous email). But if we plan to retain the WARNING,
then I agree with the change proposed here, it looks simpler and
better.

thanks
Shveta

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lukas Fittl 2025-10-22 11:28:24 Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage
Previous Message Andres Freund 2025-10-22 10:51:45 Re: IO in wrong state on riscv64