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 ;) ). Regards 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
