On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 14:25, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Dear Ashutosh, > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > ISTM the inconsistency is introduced since the initial commit. I think > > > they should > > be unified either > > > 1) update the doc or 2) accept when -d is not specified. Personally, I > > > like 2nd > > approach, pg_recvlogical > > > can follow the normal connection rule. I.e., > > > > > > > Given that the discrepancy has survived so long, it seems that users > > always pass -d. And to some extent, requiring users to specify a > > database instead of defaulting to one is safer practice. This avoids > > users fetching changes from unexpected database/slot and cause further > > database inconsistencies on the receiver side. I would just fix > > documentation in this case. > > Something like attached, right?
Apart from the database, I believe the target file also needs to be specified. Should we include this option also along with dbname: + <group choice="plain"> + <group choice="req"> + <arg choice="plain"><option>-d</option></arg> + <arg choice="plain"><option>--dbname</option></arg> + </group> + <replaceable>dbname</replaceable> + </group> pg_recvlogical -U postgres --start -S test -d postgres pg_recvlogical: error: no target file specified Regards, Vignesh
