On 16/04/01 8:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2016-03-31 10:15:21 +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
>>>> Patch changes the error message to:
>>>>   ERROR:  replication slots can only be used if wal_level is "replica" or 
>>>> "logical"
>>>> Explicitly naming the valid WAL levels matches the wording in the wal_level
>>>> error hint used in a couple of places, i.e.
>>> The explicit naming makes it much more verbose to change anything around
>>> wal level though, so consider me not a fan of spelling out all levels.
>> I thought we had agreed that we weren't going to consider the wal_level
>> values as a linear scale -- in other words, wordings such as "greater
>> than FOO" are discouraged.  That's always seemed a bit odd to me.
> Yes, that's what I thought as well.

I don't remember if I saw that particular discussion, but same here.
I suppose the alternative would be something like this:

  ERROR: replication slots cannot be used if wal_level is "minimal"

(providing it remains the only "sub-replica" WAL level ;) ).


Ian Barwick

 Ian Barwick                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to