Re: pg_recvlogical requires -d but not described on the documentation

On Monday, March 17, 2025, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:

>
> On 2025/03/12 14:59, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>> On Monday, February 24, 2025, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <
>> kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com <mailto:kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> OK, so I will exclude the point in the thread. The patch I've posted
>> contains all of fixes
>> which is required.
>>
>>
>> The patch fixes the synopsis and the mention of the default value. Only
>> the later is required. I cannot figure out a policy that would alter the
>> synopsis in the proposed manner. I’d suggest leaving it alone for now and
>> tweak any of the option descriptions that may need clarification.
>>
>
> I agree that the synopsis doesn't need to be updated. Attached patch
> clarifies
> the required options for each action in the documentation. Thought?

Will look again tomorrow but seems ok aside from needing an editing pass.

The usage section for help probably needs a look as well.

>
> BTW, I'm curious why --dbname isn't required for the --drop-slot action.
> When I ran
> pg_recvlogical --drop-slot without --dbname, I got the following error:
>
> pg_recvlogical: error: could not establish database-specific replication
> connection
>

That would be a bug.

I think this is too:

set_pglocale_pgservice(argv[0], PG_TEXTDOMAIN("pg_basebackup"));

Though I’m not sure what it is doing.

David J.