On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 10:54:23AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-11-01 09:34:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand though, so I
> don't think it'd have made much sense to do it at the same time. Nor do
> I think it's particularly important.
Thanks for the confirmation.
>> I don't mind doing so myself if you agree with the change, only on
>> HEAD as you seemed to disagree about changing that on back-branches.
>
> Cool. And yes, I don't think a cosmetic log level adjustment that could
> affect people's scripts should be backpatched without need. Even if not
> particularly likely to break something.
No issues with your arguments. I did the change this way.
>> Also, from 691d79a which you just committed:
>> + ereport(FATAL,
>> + (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
>> + errmsg("logical replication slots \"%s\" exists, but wal_level < logical",
>> + NameStr(cp.slotdata.name)),
>> I can see one grammar mistake here, as you refer to only one slot here.
>> The error messages should read:
>> "logical replication slot \"%s\" exists, but wal_level < logical"
>> and:
>> "physical replication slot \"%s\" exists, but wal_level < replica"
>
> Darnit. Fixed. Thanks.
And thanks for fixing that.
--
Michael