| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: replication_slots usability issue |
| Date: | 2018-11-02 14:51:34 |
| Message-ID: | c95a620b-34f0-7930-aeb5-f7ab804f26cb@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/11/2018 18:54, Andres Freund wrote:>
>> Also, from 691d79a which you just committed:
>> + ereport(FATAL,
>> + (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
>> + errmsg("logical replication slots \"%s\" exists, but wal_level < logical",
>> + NameStr(cp.slotdata.name)),
>> I can see one grammar mistake here, as you refer to only one slot here.
>> The error messages should read:
>> "logical replication slot \"%s\" exists, but wal_level < logical"
>> and:
>> "physical replication slot \"%s\" exists, but wal_level < replica"
>
> Darnit. Fixed. Thanks.
>
Since we are fixing this message, shouldn't the hint for logical slot
say "Change wal_level to be logical or higher" rather than "replica or
higher" :)
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-02 14:55:03 | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2018-11-02 14:47:08 | Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal |