| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Correction for replication slot creation error message in 9.6 |
| Date: | 2016-03-31 23:15:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQzppd=0K9u3UL8RwXfZbjUds+VmUcf1YJuD8rdKuVp+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-03-31 23:19:06 | Re: [PATCH v9] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-03-31 22:44:30 | Re: So, can we stop supporting Windows native now? |