On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 14:05 +0100, I wrote: > But what if someone sets wal_level=none, performs some data modifications, > sets wal_level=archive and after dome more processing decides to restore from > a backup that was taken before the cluster was set to wal_level=none? > Then they would end up with a corrupted database, right? > > I think the least this patch needs is that starting with wal_level=none emits > a WAL record that will make recovery fail.
I just realized that changing "wal_level" will cause a WAL record anyway. Besides, the situation is not much different from changing to "wal_level = minimal". So as long as PostgreSQL refuses to start after a crash, we should be good. Sorry for the noise, and I am beginning to think that this is actually a useful feature. Yours, Laurenz Albe
