On 3/4/26 4:55 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> In evaluating the proposed change to wal_level docs in [1] I found it to
> be undesirable, but the discussion and my own review discovered some
> other changes that should be considered.
While I am not happy with the text before I am not sure your changes
here really make it much better, just different, hmm.
> Since effective_wal_level now exists, Logical Replication Getting
> Started needs to be updated.
> Add links to the main topics that the different levels apply to.
> Be explicit about the ordering of minimal, replica, and logical.
> Move the behavior of effective_wal_level to the GUC for it, leaving
> behind just the pointer that wal_level is now just a "minimum".
Shouldn't it be:
"Ensure that <xref linkend="guc-wal-level"/> is at least replica"
and
"wal_level = replica"
as the logical replication slot may be created later?
--
Andreas Karlsson
Percona
