Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah. ISTM the real bottom line here is that we have only a weak grasp >> on how these features will end up being used; or for that matter what >> the common error scenarios will be. I think that for the time being >> we should err on the side of being permissive. We can tighten things >> up and add more nanny-ism in the warnings later on, when we have >> more field experience.
> Ok, here's a proposed patch. Per discussion, it relaxes the checks in > pg_start/stop_backup() so that they can be used as long as wal_level >= > 'archive', even if archiving is disabled. This patch seems reasonably noncontroversial (except possibly for message wording, which we can fine-tune later anyway). Please apply. 9.0beta1 is going to get wrapped in only a few hours. BTW, the documentation for these functions might need a bit of adjustment. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers