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