doc: Improve wal_level and effective_wal_level GUC around logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Subject | doc: Improve wal_level and effective_wal_level GUC around logical replication |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwZBEJf5sq5oj-pM18Qu1eNP=fE7zRYAybeD2ifd1gmwXg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread |
| In response to | Re: doc: Improve wal_level and effective_wal_level GUC around logical replication (Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>) |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, April 7, 2026, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2026, at 23:55, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> David J.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2Bv5N42vKtY17653eBH Fx%2BCw06E2fSmPrXmX2qKYG23%3D4 Ycd7A%40mail.gmail.com
> <v1-0001-doc-Add-some-clarity-around-wal_level.patch>
A few comments:
1
```
--- a/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
@@ -3508,11 +3508,12 @@ pg_ctl -D /opt/PostgreSQL/data2_upgraded start -l logfile
<title>Quick Setup</title>
<para>
- First set the configuration options in <filename>postgresql.conf</filename>:
+ Ensure that <xref linkend="guc-effective-wal-level"/> is at least replica
+ (this is the default).
<programlisting>
-wal_level = logical
+SHOW effective_wal_level;
</programlisting>
- The other required settings have default values that are sufficient for a
+ The other required settings also have default values that are sufficient for a
basic setup.
</para>
```
I think wal_level should be at least “logical”. I don’t get why did you change to “replica”? It’s clear that we still need “logical” to support logical replication.
A minimum setting of replica is automatically interpreted (i.e., effective WAL level) as logical when necessary so the default setting of replica doesn’t need to be changed anymore. Seeing replica in effective WAL level means no logical replication has been setup and the dba hasn’t reduced the system to minimal. If one sees logical there, that works too.
2
```
+ <literal>replica</literal>, which writes enough data to support
+ WAL archiving (see <xref linkend="continuous-archiving"/>) and
+ physical replication (see <xref linkend="streaming-replication"/>)
+ Running read-only queries on a standby server. Below that is <literal>minimal</literal>,
```
Here, “Running read-only …” sentence looks not smooth, and there is not a period for the last sentence before “Running". The old wording was “including running read-only ….”.
Yeah, I still stand by the whole of it but need to do another pass.
I do get that there likely wasn’t any ambiguity - even presented replica, minimal, logical - as to which was highest/middle/lower and being explicit here maybe seems overly verbose.
Also, I added a qualifier regarding “primary servers” but am now unsure why. Kinda concerned about logical where publisher and subscriber are not mutually exclusive.
pgsql-hackers by date: