On 2017-05-23 10:49:54 +, Neha Khatri wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2017 at 10:55 am, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
> > Neha Khatri wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier <
> > michael.paqu...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > There is no wal_level higher than logical, so the current sense
On Tue, 23 May 2017 at 10:55 am, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Neha Khatri wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com
>
> > > There is no wal_level higher than logical, so the current sense looks
> > > perfectly fine to me.
> >
> > If there is no wal_leve
Neha Khatri wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier > There is no wal_level higher than logical, so the current sense looks
> > perfectly fine to me.
>
> If there is no wal_level higher than logical, should the following error
> message indicate to set it >= logical.
>
> sele
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Neha Khatri
> wrote:
> > The Logical Decoding example in the documentation says:
> >
> > "Before you can use logical decoding, you must set wal_level to logical
> > and max_replication_slots to at least
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Neha Khatri wrote:
> The Logical Decoding example in the documentation says:
>
> "Before you can use logical decoding, you must set wal_level to logical
> and max_replication_slots to at least 1."
>
> But above error message is not exactly consistent with this do
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Neha Khatri wrote:
> As per my understabding, current postgres server supports only three
> values for wal_level i.e. 'minimal' , 'replica' or 'logical'. But
> following error message brought to notice that there are various code
> spots that try to look for wal_
