Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYXp2xBkAqou-WDvqZWye21+7MPb=bn3oYgCJAkzm_K4A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:14 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > +                     if (xlrec->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)
> > +                             ereport(ERROR,
> > +                                             (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > +                                              errmsg("logical decoding on standby requires "
> > +                                                             "wal_level >= logical on master")));
> > +                     break;
>
> Hm, this strikes me as a not quite good enough error message (same in
> other copies of the message). Perhaps something roughly like "could not
> continue with logical decoding, the primary's wal level is now too low
> (%u)"?

For what it's worth, I dislike that wording on grammatical grounds --
it sounds like two complete sentences joined by a comma, which is poor
style -- and think Amit's wording is probably fine.  We could fix the
grammatical issue by replacing the comma in your version with the word
"because," but that seems unnecessarily wordy to me.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Next
From: Ryan Lambert
Date:
Subject: Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option