On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 8:10 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: ... > I think 0001 basically good. A tiny comment is that, in inval.c, > "wal_level>=logical” doesn’t have white-spaces around “=“, while in the other > two files, they have. So maybe all add white-spaces around “=“ here. > > For 0002, I have a fixed feeling. > > This change is okay to me: > ``` > - if (wal_level != WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL) > + if (wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL) > ``` > > But I really don’t like the error message changes: > ``` > if (nslots_on_old > 0 && strcmp(wal_level, "logical") != 0) > - pg_fatal("\"wal_level\" must be \"logical\" but is set to > \"%s\"", > + pg_fatal("\"wal_level\" must be \"logical\" or higher but is > set to \"%s\"", > ``` > And > ``` > -HINT: Set "wal_level" to "logical" before creating subscriptions. > +HINT: Set "wal_level" >= "logical" before creating subscriptions. > ``` > > Which will really make end users confused. I believe end users don’t care > about so-called future extensions, they only need accurate information. >
Hi Chao. Thanks for your review comments. Here are the v3* patches. * Patch 0001 - Fixed spaces per suggestion. * Patch 0002 - Unchanged. For now, this patch 0002 is mostly only a placeholder until Sawada-San's patch [1] is pushed, and then I will revisit it. There is lots of overlap, so perhaps much of it will be made redundant. ====== [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAD21AoAtqpZW%3DzC57qxEFbBCVhJ2kF2HXmuUT3w_tHGZCYmpnw%40mail.gmail.com Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v3-0002-fix-wal_level-equality-code.patch
Description: Binary data
v3-0001-fix-wal_level-equality-comments.patch
Description: Binary data
