RE: Follow-up fixes for online wal_level change

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Follow-up fixes for online wal_level change
Date: 2026-07-17 03:35:10
Message-ID: OS9PR01MB12149AD5A8A9FF83DC4F6CF4BF5C62@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Fujii-san,

> Should this status be exposed also by pg_control_checkpoint()?

Oh I didn't know the function, yes, seems to be exposed as well.

While checking the function, I found that CheckPoint:: wal_level is not
shown by the code function as well. Should we handle that?
I think pg_controldata command does not have to output the attribute because
ControlFileData::wal_level is also printed, but not sure the SQL function.

Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message wenhui qiu 2026-07-17 04:03:17 Re: [PATCH] Refactor SLRU to always use long file names
Previous Message Chao Li 2026-07-17 01:08:37 Re: Fix duplicate detection for null-treatment window functions