| From: | Lucas Viecelli <lviecelli199(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: warning to publication created and wal_level is not set to logical |
| Date: | 2019-07-12 15:21:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAPjy-54mXB3GOhzkgbAUj3QribUXMfHFE6WN4YsZ+O1W_PXe9w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Agreed, fixed. Also run through pgindent
>
Thank you for the adjustments.
> I agree that it's not really worth having tests for this, and I take
> your point about the dependency on wal_level that we don't currently
> have. The problem is that the core tests include publications
> already, and it doesn't seem like a great idea to move the whole lot
> to a TAP test. Creating alternative expected files seems like a bad
> idea too (annoying to maintain, wouldn't compose well with the next
> thing like this). So... how about we just suppress WARNINGs for
> CREATE PUBLICATION commands that are expected to succeed? Like in the
> attached. This version passes installcheck with any wal_level.
>
All right, for me. If wal_level can not interfere with the testes result,
it seems to a better approach
*Lucas Viecelli*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-07-12 15:29:12 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-07-12 15:08:32 | Re: Brazil disables DST - 2019b update |