Re: [HACKERS] wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Neha Khatri
Тема Re: [HACKERS] wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL
Дата
Msg-id CAFO0U+-rKLYn9ofTRFX-2uNQ4e34LWg_AQ3DZ8r+s5u02_F77A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения

On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 10:29 pm, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com> wrote:
> As per my understabding, current postgres server supports only three
> values for wal_level i.e. 'minimal' , 'replica' or 'logical'. But
> following error message brought to notice that there are various code
> spots that try to look for wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL:

I suspect that this was intended as future-proofing.  I think it's
actually very reasonable to write the internal tests that way,

Agreed. Share the same thought and also started another thread just for the user visible error message improvement [1]. In that thread the error message is perceived to be correct.

but it
does seem strange that it's crept into the user-visible error
messages.

Yep, this seems useful for developer but not the end user.


Regards,
Neha
--
Cheers,
Neha

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: tushar
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription duringsynchronizing table
Следующее
От: Jeevan Ladhe
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning