Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Should we say "wal_level = logical" instead of "wal_level >= logical" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Smith
Subject Re: Should we say "wal_level = logical" instead of "wal_level >= logical"
Date
Msg-id CAHut+PvP2kut4mh3jppymooPnozow3T2fEtybERy3u_kbB1a3A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we say "wal_level = logical" instead of "wal_level >= logical"  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 2:11 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:20 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you have thoughts about the patch?
>
> I agree with the rationale that Ashutosh states but I don't see a
> strong need to patch the code to make this a 100% invariable rule. (Of
> course, someone else may disagree, which is fine.)
>

In case it makes any difference...

The codebase already follows this rule in 95% of cases. The patch
simply corrects a couple of inconsistencies that appeared to be
accidental oversights.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Matheus Alcantara"
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue
Next
From: "Joel Jacobson"
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue