Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Z6W+1YSzQqaiubTD@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 10:59:22AM -0800, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 11:48 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > + if (SlotIsLogical(s) && !EnableHotStandby) > > + ereport(FATAL, > > + (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE), > > + errmsg("hot standby must be enabled for pre-existing logical replication slots"))); > > > > On a primary lowering wal_level < logical, we'd get something like: > > > > " > > FATAL: logical replication slot "logical_slot" exists, but "wal_level" < "logical" > > " > > > > What about being close to it, so something like? > > > > " > > FATAL: logical replication slot "logical_slot" exists, but "hot_standby" = "off" > > " > > Looks good, but I'd like to mention that this is required only on > standbys. So how about the following? > > FATAL: logical replication slot "s" exists on the standby, but > "hot_standby" = "off" > HINT: Change "hot_standby" to be "on". Thanks! Looks good and consistent with the existing wording that can be found in slot.c. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: